Thomas Desmond1,2, Vincent Tran3, Monish Maharaj4,5, Nicole Carnt6,3,7,8, Andrew White6,3,7. 1. Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. thomas@thomasdesmond.net. 2. School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. thomas@thomasdesmond.net. 3. School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 4. Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 5. Department of Neurosurgery, Waikato Hospital, Hamilton, New Zealand. 6. Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 7. Westmead Institute for Medical Research, Sydney, Australia. 8. Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, UK.
Correction to: Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental OphthalmologyThe authors would like to fully acknowledge that in error two incorrect statements were made.The first incorrect statement is:A Cochrane review by Jindal et al (2020) assessed non-contact tests for angle closure but did not compare against gonioscopy as a reference standard.A systematic review and meta-analysis that was published in the Cochrane Library in May 2020 [1], evaluated a range of non-contact tests that including anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) for the detection of an occludable angle. For all 47 studies included in the review (including the 27 AS-OCT studies) the authors compared their accuracy to a gonioscopic reference standard.The published paper found 23 studies that evaluated AS-OCT to gonioscopy whereas in the Cochrane review by Jindal et al., they investigated 27 studies that evaluated AS-OCT compared to the reference standard of gonioscopy, therefore this that may affect the published paper's findings. Furthermore the published paper has not discussed how their meta-analysis, discussion and conclusions differs from the published Cochrane review by Jindal et al.In the current review it was reported that 'AS-OCT allows for earlier detection and provides a tool for screening where there is very little else available.' This statement is contrary to the findings of the Cochrane library [1] where the meta-analysis and comparisons of non-contact tests demonstrated that LACD had superior specificity to AS-OCT and similar sensitivity. Furthermore it is generally acknowledged that LACD is a test that can be performed without the need of additional equipment and where a conventional slit-lamp can be used therefore LACD is particularly applicable in settings where costs may be a barrier for implementation.The second incorrect statement is:'Our review has been the first to perform a meta-analysis of data that assesses the accuracy of AS-OCT for detecting angle closure against gonioscopy as a reference standard.The authors would also like to confirm that Jindal et al. published the first systematic review to include a meta analysis of the accuracy of AS-OCT against a gonioscopic reference standard.