Asaf Achiron1,2, Roy Yavnieli3,4, Alon Tiosano3,4, Uri Elbaz3,4, Yoav Nahum3,4, Eitan Livny3,4, Irit Bahar3,4. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel. achironasaf@gmail.com. 2. Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. achironasaf@gmail.com. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel. 4. Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the ABCD progression display for keratoconus progression. METHODS: Data was collected from patients that underwent at least two Pentacam assessments 6 months apart. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for the ABCD progression display. Progression was defined by criterion 1: change in two ABCD parameters above 80% confidence interval (CI) or criterion 2: change in one ABCD parameter above 95%CI. Receiver operating characteristic analysis compared the area under the curve (AUC) of all ABCD parameter combinations. RESULTS: Thirty eyes were evaluated over a median time of 10.3 months. Progression by criterion 1 resulted in a sensitivity of 61.9% and specificity of 88.9%. Progression by criterion 2 resulted in higher sensitivity (80.9%) and specificity (100%). Pairwise comparisons of the ROC curves show that the AUC achieved by criterion 2 was significantly higher than criterion 1 (0.905 vs. 0.754, p = 0.0332). Evaluation of all ABCD combinations with a significant change of 80% or 95% CI did not show superiority over criterion 1 or 2 regarding progression detection. The D parameter had a very low AUC (0.5-0.556). CONCLUSIONS: The ABCD progression display can assess keratoconus progression with high sensitivity and specificity, thus assisting the patients' decision-making process. The D parameter did not contribute to the sensitivity or specificity of this classification.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the ABCD progression display for keratoconus progression. METHODS: Data was collected from patients that underwent at least two Pentacam assessments 6 months apart. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for the ABCD progression display. Progression was defined by criterion 1: change in two ABCD parameters above 80% confidence interval (CI) or criterion 2: change in one ABCD parameter above 95%CI. Receiver operating characteristic analysis compared the area under the curve (AUC) of all ABCD parameter combinations. RESULTS: Thirty eyes were evaluated over a median time of 10.3 months. Progression by criterion 1 resulted in a sensitivity of 61.9% and specificity of 88.9%. Progression by criterion 2 resulted in higher sensitivity (80.9%) and specificity (100%). Pairwise comparisons of the ROC curves show that the AUC achieved by criterion 2 was significantly higher than criterion 1 (0.905 vs. 0.754, p = 0.0332). Evaluation of all ABCD combinations with a significant change of 80% or 95% CI did not show superiority over criterion 1 or 2 regarding progression detection. The D parameter had a very low AUC (0.5-0.556). CONCLUSIONS: The ABCD progression display can assess keratoconus progression with high sensitivity and specificity, thus assisting the patients' decision-making process. The D parameter did not contribute to the sensitivity or specificity of this classification.
Authors: Anna Karakosta; Maria Vassilaki; Sotiris Plainis; Nazik Hag Elfadl; Miltiadis Tsilimbaris; Joanna Moschandreas Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2011-11-10 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Mehdi Shajari; Gernot Steinwender; Kim Herrmann; Kate Barbara Kubiak; Ivana Pavlovic; Elena Plawetzki; Ingo Schmack; Thomas Kohnen Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Robert P L Wisse; Rob W P Simons; Martijn J B van der Vossen; Marc B Muijzer; Nienke Soeters; Rudy M M A Nuijts; Daniel A Godefrooij Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Alex C Ferdi; Vuong Nguyen; Daniel M Gore; Bruce D Allan; Jos J Rozema; Stephanie L Watson Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2019-03-08 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Wendy Hatch; Sherif El-Defrawy; Stephan Ong Tone; Raymond Stein; Allan R Slomovic; David S Rootman; Theodore Rabinovitch; Christoph Kranemann; Hall F Chew; Clara C Chan; Matthew C Bujak; Ashley Cohen; Gerald Lebovic; Yaping Jin; Neera Singal Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2020-01-13 Impact factor: 5.258