Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
1.
Br J Ophthalmol ; 102(3): 358-363, 2018 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28814418

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The objective of this study is to evaluate the accuracy and speed of trainees and experienced glaucoma specialists using the MatchedFlicker software against the manual examination of stereoscopic disc photographs for detecting glaucomatous optic disc change. METHODS: Three experienced glaucoma specialists, two resident ophthalmologists and one glaucoma fellow from multiple institutions independently evaluated the same 140 image pairs from 100 glaucomatous/ocular hypertensive eyes using a handheld stereo viewer and the MatchedFlicker programme. Fifty had progression to glaucoma as determined by the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study (OHTS) Optic Disc Reading Group and endpoint committee, and 50 more were negative controls for progression with photos taken a few minutes apart. Twenty photo pairs from each of the two groups were duplicated for reviewer variability analysis. The initial viewing method was randomised and then alternated for each group of 70 image pairs. Reviewer accuracy and evaluation time for each method were measured. RESULTS: Evaluators averaged 8.6 s faster per image pair (26%) with the MatchedFlicker programme than with the stereo viewer (p=0.0007). Evaluators correctly identified more image pairs when using the MatchedFlicker software over the stereo viewer (p=0.0003). There was no significant difference between the expert and trainee group in speed or overall accuracy for either method. Experts were significantly more consistent than trainees with the duplicate image pairs (p=0.029). Trainees appeared more reluctant to designate eyes as showing glaucoma progression than experts. CONCLUSIONS: Both expert glaucoma specialists and ophthalmologists in various stages of training had greater accuracy and speed with the MatchedFlicker programme than with a handheld stereoscopic viewer.


Asunto(s)
Diagnóstico por Computador/métodos , Glaucoma de Ángulo Abierto/diagnóstico , Internado y Residencia , Oftalmólogos , Disco Óptico/patología , Enfermedades del Nervio Óptico/diagnóstico , Fotograbar/métodos , Progresión de la Enfermedad , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Variaciones Dependientes del Observador , Hipertensión Ocular/diagnóstico , Oftalmología/educación , Estudios Prospectivos , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Sensibilidad y Especificidad , Trastornos de la Visión/diagnóstico , Trastornos de la Visión/fisiopatología , Campos Visuales/fisiología
2.
Am J Ophthalmol ; 167: 88-95, 2016 Jul.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27038890

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy and speed of using the computerized MatchedFlicker software program (EyeIC Inc, Narberth, Pennsylvania, USA) to evaluate glaucomatous optic disc change against the traditional gold standard of manually examining stereoscopic disc photographs. DESIGN: A prospective evaluation of diagnostic technology. METHODS: Two resident ophthalmologists and 1 glaucoma fellow at the University of Florida independently evaluated 140 image pairs from 100 glaucomatous/ocular hypertensive patient eyes using a handheld stereo viewer and the MatchedFlicker program. Fifty had progression to glaucoma as determined by the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study (OHTS) Optic Disc Reading Group and the OHTS Endpoint Committee in the OHTS, and 50 more had photographs taken a few minutes apart, which were negative controls with no progression. Twenty photograph pairs from each group were duplicated to determine reviewer variability. Photographs were examined in alternating blocks of 70 photograph pairs for each method, with the starting viewing method randomized. Reviewer accuracy and time to review for each method were measured. RESULTS: Using the handheld stereo viewer, the reviewers correctly identified progression or nonprogression in 76.0% of the slide pairs. Using the MatchedFlicker software, 87.6% were correctly identified (P = .011). Evaluator speed averaged 34.1 seconds per image pair with the stereo viewer vs 24.9 seconds with the MatchedFlicker program (P = .044). Overall, Flicker was significantly more specific but less sensitive than stereo slides. Trainees appeared more reluctant to identify glaucoma progression from slides than from Flicker. For the 2 less experienced trainees Flicker was significantly more accurate. CONCLUSION: The MatchedFlicker software had a greater accuracy and was quicker to perform than using a handheld stereoscopic viewer.


Asunto(s)
Diagnóstico por Imagen/métodos , Técnicas de Diagnóstico Oftalmológico , Glaucoma de Ángulo Abierto/diagnóstico , Oftalmología/educación , Disco Óptico/patología , Enfermedades del Nervio Óptico/diagnóstico , Enseñanza , Progresión de la Enfermedad , Educación de Postgrado en Medicina , Reacciones Falso Positivas , Humanos , Internado y Residencia , Fibras Nerviosas/patología , Fotograbar , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Estudios Prospectivos , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Células Ganglionares de la Retina/patología , Sensibilidad y Especificidad , Programas Informáticos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...