Epiretinal membrane in uveitis: Rate, visual prognosis, complications and surgical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Epiretinal membrane (ERM) is a common finding in patients with uveitis that contributes to visual impairment. We describe the long-term visual acuity (VA) and morphometric progression in patients with uveitis and epiretinal membrane (ERM). METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of patients with uveitic ERM from a tertiary centre database. Multivariate analysis of risk factors for ERM progression was calculated using a marginal Cox regression model to estimate hazard ratios (HR). RESULTS: Two hundred and sixteen eyes (4%) of a total 5450 eyes with uveitis were identified to have an ERM. The most common diagnosis was idiopathic uveitis in 45 patients (28.7%), followed by sarcoidosis in 21 (13.4%), HLAB27-related uveitis in 15 (9.6%) and toxoplasmosis in 15 (9.6%). Risk factors for ERM development include age (HR 1.03), intermediate uveitis (HR 2.33), posterior uveitis (HR 1.53) and ERM fellow eye (HR 18.28). Anterior uveitis (HR 0.53) and alternating disease (HR 0.53) were protective. Median VA was 20/40 at diagnosis of ERM and 20/40 at final follow up. Progression of ERM grade occurred in 17 eyes (7.9%) during the study period. ERM peel was performed in 44 eyes (20.4%). Median VA was 20/60 and 20/40 at baseline and 12 months after surgery, respectively. Improvement in visual acuity occurred in 23 eyes (60.5%) following surgery. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to intermediate and posterior uveitis, fellow eye involvement is a strong risk factor for ERM development. In treated uveitis, the majority maintain their long-term vision and rates of ERM progression are low.

Heterogeneity in Systematic Reviews of Medical Imaging Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Systematic reviews of medical imaging diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies are affected by between-study heterogeneity due to a range of factors. Failure to appropriately assess the extent and causes of heterogeneity compromises the interpretability of systematic review findings. Objective: To assess how heterogeneity has been examined in medical imaging DTA studies. Evidence Review: The PubMed database was searched for systematic reviews of medical imaging DTA studies that performed a meta-analysis. The search was limited to the 40 journals with highest impact factor in the radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging category in the InCites Journal Citation Reports of 2021 to reach a sample size of 200 to 300 included studies. Descriptive analysis was performed to characterize the imaging modality, target condition, type of meta-analysis model used, strategies for evaluating heterogeneity, and sources of heterogeneity identified. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess whether any factors were associated with at least 1 source of heterogeneity being identified in the included meta-analyses. Methodological quality evaluation was not performed. Data analysis occurred from October to December 2022. Findings: A total of 242 meta-analyses involving a median (range) of 987 (119-441 510) patients across a diverse range of disease categories and imaging modalities were included. The extent of heterogeneity was adequately described (ie, whether it was absent, low, moderate, or high) in 220 studies (91%) and was most commonly assessed using the I2 statistic (185 studies [76%]) and forest plots (181 studies [75%]). Heterogeneity was rated as moderate to high in 191 studies (79%). Of all included meta-analyses, 122 (50%) performed subgroup analysis and 87 (36%) performed meta-regression. Of the 242 studies assessed, 189 (78%) included 10 or more primary studies. Of these 189 studies, 60 (32%) did not perform meta-regression or subgroup analysis. Reasons for being unable to investigate sources of heterogeneity included inadequate reporting of primary study characteristics and a low number of included primary studies. Use of meta-regression was associated with identification of at least 1 source of variability (odds ratio, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.11-3.23; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review of assessment of heterogeneity in medical imaging DTA meta-analyses, most meta-analyses were impacted by a moderate to high level of heterogeneity, presenting interpretive challenges. These findings suggest that, despite the development and availability of more rigorous statistical models, heterogeneity appeared to be incomplete, inconsistently evaluated, or methodologically questionable in many cases, which lessened the interpretability of the analyses performed; comprehensive heterogeneity assessment should be addressed at the author level by improving personal familiarity with appropriate statistical methodology for assessing heterogeneity and involving biostatisticians and epidemiologists in study design, as well as at the editorial level, by mandating adherence to methodologic standards in primary DTA studies and DTA meta-analyses.