Dataset Information

Instrument-based Tests for Measuring Anterior Chamber Cells in Uveitis: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

New instrument-based techniques for anterior chamber (AC) cell counting can offer automation and objectivity above clinician assessment. This review aims to identify such instruments and its correlation with clinician estimates.

Methods

Using standard systematic review methodology, we identified and tabulated the outcomes of studies reporting reliability and correlation between instrument-based measurements and clinician AC cell grading.

Results

From 3470 studies, 6 reported correlation between an instrument-based AC cell count to clinician grading. The two instruments were optical coherence tomography (OCT) and laser flare-cell photometry (LFCP). Correlation between clinician grading and LFCP was 0.66-0.87 and 0.06-0.97 between clinician grading and OCT. OCT volume scans demonstrated correlation between 0.75 and 0.78. Line scans in the middle AC demonstrated higher correlation (0.73-0.97) than in the inferior AC (0.06-0.56).

Conclusion

AC cell count by OCT and LFP can achieve high levels of correlation with clinician grading, whilst offering additional advantages of speed, automation, and objectivity.

SUBMITTER: Liu X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7497279 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Instrument-based Tests for Measuring Anterior Chamber Cells in Uveitis: A Systematic Review.

Liu Xiaoxuan X Solebo Ameenat L AL Faes Livia L Beese Sophie S Braithwaite Tasanee T Round Matthew E ME Panthagani Jesse J Kale Aditya U AU McNally Thomas W TW Abdulla Didar D Keane Pearse A PA Moore David J DJ Denniston Alastair K AK

Ocular immunology and inflammation 20190816 6

<h4>Purpose</h4>New instrument-based techniques for anterior chamber (AC) cell counting can offer automation and objectivity above clinician assessment. This review aims to identify such instruments and its correlation with clinician estimates.<h4>Methods</h4>Using standard systematic review methodology, we identified and tabulated the outcomes of studies reporting reliability and correlation between instrument-based measurements and clinician AC cell grading.<h4>Results</h4>From 3470 studies, 6 ...[more]

PMID: 31418609

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNumerous clinical tests are used in the diagnosis of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury but their accuracy is unclear. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of clinical tests for the diagnosis of ACL injury.MethodsStudy designSystematic review. The review protocol was registered through PROSPERO (CRD42012002069). Electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL) were searched up to 19th of June 2013 to identify diagnostic studies comparing the accuracy of clinical tests for ACL injury to an acceptable reference standard (arthroscopy, arthrotomy, or MRI). Risk of bias was appraised using the QUADAS-2 checklist. Index test accuracy was evaluated using a descriptive analysis of paired likelihood ratios and displayed as forest plots.ResultsA total of 285 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, from which 14 studies were included in this review. Included studies were deemed to be clinically and statistically heterogeneous, so a meta-analysis was not performed. Nine clinical tests from the history (popping sound at time of injury, giving way, effusion, pain, ability to continue activity) and four from physical examination (anterior draw test, Lachman's test, prone Lachman's test and pivot shift test) were investigated for diagnostic accuracy. Inspection of positive and negative likelihood ratios indicated that none of the individual tests provide useful diagnostic information in a clinical setting. Most studies were at risk of bias and reported imprecise estimates of diagnostic accuracy.ConclusionDespite being widely used and accepted in clinical practice, the results of individual history items or physical tests do not meaningfully change the probability of ACL injury. In contrast combinations of tests have higher diagnostic accuracy; however the most accurate combination of clinical tests remains an area for future research.Clinical relevanceClinicians should be aware of the limitations associated with the use of clinical tests for diagnosis of ACL injury.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study compared 4 clinical tests with reference to magnetic resonance imaging and arthroscopic visualization to comprehensively evaluate their diagnostic value for anterior cruciate ligament injuries.MethodsWe systematically searched 10 electronic databases from January 1, 2010, to May 1, 2021. Two reviewers collected data in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines. The quality of each study was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. A meta-analysis was performed using Meta-Disc version 1.4 and Stata SE version 15.0.ResultsEighteen articles involving 2031 participants were included. The results of the meta-analysis showed that for the Lachman test, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnosis odds ratio, area under the curve (AUC) of summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC), and Q* were 0.76 (95% CI, 0.73-0.78), 0.89 (95% CI, 0.87-0.91), 5.65 (95% CI, 4.05-7.86), 0.28 (95% CI, 0.23-0.36), 22.95 (95% CI, 14.34-36.72), 0.88, and 0.81, respectively. For the anterior drawer test, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnosis odds ratio, AUC of SROC, and Q* were 0.64 (95% CI, 0.61-0.68), 0.87 (95% CI, 0.84-0.90), 3.57 (95% CI, 2.13-5.96), 0.44 (95% CI, 0.32-0.59), 8.77 (95% CI, 4.11-18.74), 0.85, and 0.78, respectively. For the pivot shift test, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnosis odds ratio, AUC of SROC, and Q* were 0.59 (95% CI, 0.56-0.62), 0.97 (95% CI, 0.95-0.98), 13.99 (95% CI, 9.96-19.64), 0.44 (95% CI, 0.35-0.55), 29.46 (95% CI, 15.60-55.67), 0.98, and 0.94, respectively. For the lever sign test, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnosis odds ratio, AUC of SROC, and Q* were 0.79 (95% CI, 0.75-0.83), 0.92 (95% CI, 0.87-0.95), 9.56 (95% CI, 2.76-33.17), 0.23 (95% CI, 0.12-0.46), 47.38 (95% CI, 8.68-258.70), 0.94, and 0.87, respectively.ConclusionsExisting evidence shows that these clinical tests have high diagnostic efficacy for anterior cruciate ligament injuries, and that every test has its own advantages and disadvantages. However, the above results should be validated through additional studies, considering the limited quality and quantity of our sample.

Project description:Topic: Herpes simplex virus (HSV) and varicella zoster virus (VZV) are the most common ocular pathogens associated with infectious anterior uveitis. Currently, there are a number of antiviral agents administered to treat viral anterior uveitis (VAU). However, there is no consensus or guidelines about the most appropriate approach leading for the best treatment outcomes with fewer ocular complications. Clinical Relevance: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of different antiviral therapies in the management of anterior uveitis secondary to HSV and VZV. Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, OVID, and Embase up to January 2020. Randomized trials, non-randomized intervention studies, controlled before and after studies and observational studies assessing the effect of oral and or topical treatments for VAU were considered. Data extraction and analysis with evaluation of the risk of bias in the included trials were performed. Results: Oral acyclovir demonstrated a statistically significant good treatment outcome in the management of VZV anterior uveitis (vs. placebo) (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.11-0.59), but did not have similar effect in HSV anterior uveitis (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.15-1.50). In the treatment of VZV anterior uveitis, there was significant superiority of oral acyclovir-7 day course-over topical acyclovir (OR 4.17, 95% CI 1.28-13.52). Whereas, there was no significant superiority of one of the following treatment regimens over the others: topical acyclovir over topical corticosteroids (OR 1.86, 95% CI 0.67-5.17), and oral acyclovir-7 day course-over oral acyclovir-14 day course-(OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.01-4.50) or oral valaciclovir (OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.48-4.07). Conclusion: Treatment of HSV and VZV anterior uveitis is currently based on individual experiences and limited literature, largely due to weak clinical trial evidence in this regard. Our results highlight the existence of a substantial gap in our evidence base. This finding might contribute to future research studies to ascertain the role of different antiviral therapies in the treatment of VAU. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD420202 00404.

Dataset Information

Instrument-based Tests for Measuring Anterior Chamber Cells in Uveitis: A Systematic Review.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Instrument-based Tests for Measuring Anterior Chamber Cells in Uveitis: A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets