Accuracy of Optical Coherence Tomography for Diagnosing Glaucoma: an Overview of Systematic Reviews

Overview

Journal Br J Ophthalmol

Specialty Ophthalmology

Date 2020 Jun 5

PMID 32493760

Citations 6

Authors

Manuele Michelessi

Tianjing Li

Alba Miele

Augusto Azuara-Blanco

Riaz Qureshi

Gianni Virgili

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Aims: To assess the diagnostic accuracy (DTA) of optical coherence tomography (OCT) for detecting glaucoma by systematically searching and appraising systematic reviews (SRs) on this issue.

Methods: We searched a database of SRs in eyes and vision maintained by the Cochrane Eyes and Vision United States on the DTA of OCT for detecting glaucoma. Two authors working independently screened the records, abstracted data and assessed the risk of bias using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews checklist. We extracted quantitative DTA estimates as well as qualitative statements on their relevance to practice.

Results: We included four SRs published between 2015 and 2018. These SRs included between 17 and 113 studies on OCT for glaucoma diagnosis. Two reviews were at low risk of bias and the other two had two to four domains at high or unclear risk of bias with concerns on applicability. The two reliable SRs reported the accuracy of average retinal nerve fibre layer (RNFL) thickness and found a sensitivity of 0.69 (0.63 to 0.73) and 0.78 (0.74 to 0.83) and a specificity of 0.94 (0.93 to 0.95) and 0.93 (0.92 to 0.95) in 57 and 50 studies, respectively. Only one review included a clear specification of the clinical pathway. Both reviews highlighted the limitations of primary DTA studies on this topic.

Conclusions: The quality of published DTA reviews on OCT for diagnosing glaucoma was mixed. Two reliable SRs found moderate sensitivity at high specificity for average RNFL thickness in diagnosing manifest glaucoma. Our overview suggests that the methodological quality of both primary and secondary DTA research on glaucoma is in need of improvement.

Citing Articles

Interocular retinal asymmetry and cognitive frailty: A prospective cohort study.

Lee Y, Hsieh Y, Huang T, Chiou J, Peng T, Liu Y Alzheimers Dement. 2024; 21(2):e14437.

PMID: 39711521 PMC: 11848388. DOI: 10.1002/alz.14437.

Evaluation of the Effect of Duration on Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness and Choroidal Thickness in Exfoliation Syndrome and Exfoliative Glaucoma.

Toptan M, Simsek A Diagnostics (Basel). 2023; 13(2).

PMID: 36673124 PMC: 9857932. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13020314.

The Natural History of Leber's Hereditary Optic Neuropathy in an Irish Population and Assessment for Prognostic Biomarkers.

Stephenson K, McAndrew J, Kenna P, Cassidy L Neuroophthalmology. 2022; 46(3):159-170.

PMID: 35574161 PMC: 9103396. DOI: 10.1080/01658107.2022.2032761.

A deep dive into the latest European Glaucoma Society and Asia-Pacific Glaucoma Society guidelines and their relevance to India.

Murthy G, Ariga M, Singh M, George R, Sarma P, Dubey S Indian J Ophthalmol. 2021; 70(1):24-35.

PMID: 34937204 PMC: 8917547. DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_1762_21.

Enhanced Objective Detection of Retinal Nerve Fiber Bundle Defects in Glaucoma With a Novel Method for En Face OCT Slab Image Construction and Analysis.

Cheloni R, Dewsbery S, Denniss J Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2021; 10(12):1.

PMID: 34605878 PMC: 8496419. DOI: 10.1167/tvst.10.12.1.

References

Whiting P, Rutjes A, Westwood M, Mallett S, Deeks J, Reitsma J . QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155(8):529-36. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009. View

Fallon M, Valero O, Pazos M, Anton A . Diagnostic accuracy of imaging devices in glaucoma: A meta-analysis. Surv Ophthalmol. 2017; 62(4):446-461. DOI: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2017.01.001. View

Rutjes A, Reitsma J, Vandenbroucke J, Glas A, Bossuyt P . Case-control and two-gate designs in diagnostic accuracy studies. Clin Chem. 2005; 51(8):1335-41. DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2005.048595. View

Lucenteforte E, Moja L, Pecoraro V, Conti A, Conti A, Crudeli E . Discordances originated by multiple meta-analyses on interventions for myocardial infarction: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 68(3):246-56. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.004. View

Salameh J, McInnes M, Moher D, Thombs B, McGrath T, Frank R . Completeness of Reporting of Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Based on the PRISMA-DTA Reporting Guideline. Clin Chem. 2018; 65(2):291-301. DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2018.292987. View

Whiting P, Savovic J, Higgins J, Caldwell D, Reeves B, Shea B . ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015; 69:225-34. PMC: 4687950. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005. View

Johnson Z, Siddiqui M, Azuara-Blanco A . The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies of optical coherence tomography in glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2007; 114(9):1607-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.11.036. View

Chalmers I, Glasziou P . Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009; 374(9683):86-9. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9. View

Siontis K, Ioannidis J . Replication, Duplication, and Waste in a Quarter Million Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2018; 11(12):e005212. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.118.005212. View

10.

Banister K, Boachie C, Bourne R, Cook J, Burr J, Ramsay C . Can Automated Imaging for Optic Disc and Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Analysis Aid Glaucoma Detection?. Ophthalmology. 2016; 123(5):930-8. PMC: 4846823. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.01.041. View

11.

Whiting P, Rutjes A, Reitsma J, Bossuyt P, Kleijnen J . The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003; 3:25. PMC: 305345. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-3-25. View

12.

Prum Jr B, Rosenberg L, Gedde S, Mansberger S, Stein J, Moroi S . Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma Preferred Practice Pattern(®) Guidelines. Ophthalmology. 2015; 123(1):P41-P111. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.10.053. View

13.

Le J, Qureshi R, Twose C, Rosman L, Han G, Fapohunda K . Evaluation of Systematic Reviews of Interventions for Retina and Vitreous Conditions. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2019; 137(12):1399-1405. PMC: 6802257. DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2019.4016. View

14.

Oddone F, Lucenteforte E, Michelessi M, Rizzo S, Donati S, Parravano M . Macular versus Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Parameters for Diagnosing Manifest Glaucoma: A Systematic Review of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. Ophthalmology. 2016; 123(5):939-49. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.12.041. View

15.

. European Glaucoma Society Terminology and Guidelines for Glaucoma, 5th Edition. Br J Ophthalmol. 2021; 105(Suppl 1):1-169. DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2021-egsguidelines. View

16.

Naudet F, Schuit E, Ioannidis J . Overlapping network meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies. Int J Epidemiol. 2017; 46(6):1999-2008. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyx138. View

17.

Michelessi M, Lucenteforte E, Miele A, Oddone F, Crescioli G, Fameli V . Diagnostic accuracy research in glaucoma is still incompletely reported: An application of Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) 2015. PLoS One. 2017; 12(12):e0189716. PMC: 5730182. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189716. View

18.

Ioannidis J . The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016; 94(3):485-514. PMC: 5020151. DOI: 10.1111/1468-0009.12210. View

19.

Michelessi M, Lucenteforte E, Oddone F, Brazzelli M, Parravano M, Franchi S . Optic nerve head and fibre layer imaging for diagnosing glaucoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015; (11):CD008803. PMC: 4732281. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008803.pub2. View

20.

Sackett D, Rosenberg W, Gray J, Haynes R, Richardson W . Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ. 1996; 312(7023):71-2. PMC: 2349778. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71. View