Literature DB >> 25609499

[Comparison of the specificity and sensitivity of various instrument-guided keratoconus indices and classifiers].

C Spira1, A Grigoryan, N Szentmáry, B Seitz, A Langenbucher, T Eppig.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Are the classifications achieved by the Belin-Ambrósio (BA) enhanced ectasia module, the keratoconus indices of the Pentacam HR and the ectasia screening index (ESI) using CASIA anterior segment optical coherence tomography (OCT) comparable to the topographical keratoconus classification (TKC) of the Pentacam HR? Can the indices be used interchangeably to assist in the diagnosis of keratoconus?
METHODS: This retrospective study examined 228 datasets (eyes) of patients with a mean age of 36.6 ± 13.6 years which were grouped into a non-keratoconus group (group I, n = 59) and a keratoconus group (group II, n = 169) according to the clinical assessment. From the data sets of these eyes the sensitivity and specificity of various ectasia and keratoconus indices (KI) were calculated with the help of receiver operating characteristics (ROC). Groups were compared using the Mann-Whitney and χ(2)-tests.
RESULTS: Groups I and II had a mean KI of 1.04 and 1.26 and a mean ESI of 3.0 and 66.6, respectively. The χ(2)-test showed no significant coincidence of the distance of the thinnest point from the apex with TKC (χ(2) > 2, p > 0.35). All other BA parameters as well as the ESI showed a significant coincidence with the keratoconus diagnosis and the classification of TKC (p < 0.001). The ESI and KI along with some BA parameters (Df, Db, Dp and D) showed a good separation between groups I and II with an area under the ROC curves of > 0.93.
CONCLUSION: The enhanced indices and classifiers, such as the BA module or the ESI were comparable with the purely anterior corneal surface based TKC.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25609499     DOI: 10.1007/s00347-014-3135-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ophthalmologe        ISSN: 0941-293X            Impact factor:   1.059


  12 in total

1.  Index for rating diagnostic tests.

Authors:  W J YOUDEN
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1950-01       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 2.  [Detection of early forms of keratoconus - current screening methods].

Authors:  S Goebels; T Eppig; B Seitz; A Langenbucher
Journal:  Klin Monbl Augenheilkd       Date:  2013-07-10       Impact factor: 0.700

3.  [Diagnostics and stage-oriented therapy of keratoconus: introduction to the Homburg keratoconus center (HKC)].

Authors:  S Goebels; B Seitz; A Langenbucher
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 1.059

4.  [A comparison of device-based diagnostic methods for keratoconus].

Authors:  L Müßig; E Zemova; J Pattmöller; B Seitz; T Eppig; N Szentmáry; A Langenbucher
Journal:  Klin Monbl Augenheilkd       Date:  2014-07-15       Impact factor: 0.700

5.  Novel pachymetric parameters based on corneal tomography for diagnosing keratoconus.

Authors:  Renato Ambrósio; Ana Laura C Caiado; Frederico P Guerra; Ricardo Louzada; Roy A Sinha; Allan Luz; William J Dupps; Michael W Belin
Journal:  J Refract Surg       Date:  2011-07-29       Impact factor: 3.573

6.  Biomechanical diagnosis of keratoconus: evaluation of the keratoconus match index and the keratoconus match probability.

Authors:  Georgios Labiris; Zisis Gatzioufas; Haris Sideroudi; Athanassios Giarmoukakis; Vassilios Kozobolis; Berthold Seitz
Journal:  Acta Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-04-05       Impact factor: 3.761

7.  Automated keratoconus screening with corneal topography analysis.

Authors:  N Maeda; S D Klyce; M K Smolek; H W Thompson
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 4.799

8.  Keratoconus diagnosis with optical coherence tomography–based pachymetric scoring system.

Authors:  Bing Qin; Shihao Chen; Robert Brass; Yan Li; Maolong Tang; Xinbo Zhang; Xiaoyu Wang; Qinmei Wang; David Huang
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 3.351

9.  Comparison of three-dimensional optical coherence tomography and combining a rotating Scheimpflug camera with a Placido topography system for forme fruste keratoconus diagnosis.

Authors:  Shinichi Fukuda; Simone Beheregaray; Sujin Hoshi; Masahiro Yamanari; Yiheng Lim; Takahiro Hiraoka; Yoshiaki Yasuno; Tetsuro Oshika
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-09-30       Impact factor: 4.638

Review 10.  Scheimpflug imaging for keratoconus and ectatic disease.

Authors:  Michael W Belin; Renato Ambrósio
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 1.848

View more
  4 in total

1.  [Early diagnosis of keratoconus].

Authors:  Stefan J Lang; P Maier; T Böhringer; T Reinhard
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2021-07-23       Impact factor: 1.059

2.  Penetrating Keratoplasty for Keratoconus - Excimer Versus Femtosecond Laser Trephination.

Authors:  Berthold Seitz; Achim Langenbucher; Tobias Hager; Edgar Janunts; Moatasem El-Husseiny; Nora Szentmáry
Journal:  Open Ophthalmol J       Date:  2017-07-31

3.  Keratoconus severity identification using unsupervised machine learning.

Authors:  Siamak Yousefi; Ebrahim Yousefi; Hidenori Takahashi; Takahiko Hayashi; Hironobu Tampo; Satoru Inoda; Yusuke Arai; Penny Asbell
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-11-06       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Keratoconic eyes with stable corneal tomography could benefit more from custom intraocular lens design than normal eyes.

Authors:  Simon Schröder; Timo Eppig; Weidi Liu; Jens Schrecker; Achim Langenbucher
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-03-05       Impact factor: 4.379

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.