FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2112559287> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2112559287 endingPage "862" @default.
• W2112559287 startingPage "855" @default.
• W2112559287 abstract "Purpose To evaluate the diagnostic power of a novel digital stereoscopic imaging system in the diagnosis of glaucomatous optic neuropathy. Design Prospective cross-sectional analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of digital stereoscopic optic disc analysis in the diagnosis of glaucomatous optic neuropathy exhibiting mild to moderate field loss. Participants Fifty-two patients with open-angle glaucoma and 54 normal individuals were recruited. The presence of a reproducible visual field loss characteristic of glaucoma was used as the reference standard for the presence of glaucoma independent of the optic nerve head appearance. Patients were excluded if the optic disc, fundus, or visual field indicated other disease. One eye from each patient and individual was included in the study, the eye with the least field loss and a randomly designated normal eye, respectively. Methods Simultaneous stereoscopic optic disc photography was performed on each specified eye. Three experienced observers viewed the resultant stereoscopic image of each nerve head using a Z screen, recorded a subjective clinical diagnosis, and undertook digital stereoscopic planimetry. Separate linear regression analysis was performed, post hoc, from the planimetric results for each observer of the logarithm of neuroretinal rim (NRR) against optic disc area derived from each normal eye. Eyes with NRR areas below the 95th prediction interval of the normal cohort were then classified as glaucomatous. Main Outcome Measures Sensitivity and specificity for the detection of glaucomatous optic neuropathy. Results With subjective stereoscopic analysis, sensitivity for glaucoma detection among the 3 observers was 80.8%, 76.9%, and 90.4%, with respective specificities of 94.4%, 79.6%, and 79.6%. Regression analysis of the NRR in 30° segments gave sensitivities between 69.2% and 80.8% and specificities between 83.3% and 90.7%. A combination of the subjective and quantitative analysis did not significantly improve discrimination. Conclusions The subjective analysis of digital stereoscopic images provides a useful method for the discrimination of normal and glaucomatous optic nerves. Planimetric analysis does not significantly improve the diagnostic precision of this technique. To evaluate the diagnostic power of a novel digital stereoscopic imaging system in the diagnosis of glaucomatous optic neuropathy. Prospective cross-sectional analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of digital stereoscopic optic disc analysis in the diagnosis of glaucomatous optic neuropathy exhibiting mild to moderate field loss. Fifty-two patients with open-angle glaucoma and 54 normal individuals were recruited. The presence of a reproducible visual field loss characteristic of glaucoma was used as the reference standard for the presence of glaucoma independent of the optic nerve head appearance. Patients were excluded if the optic disc, fundus, or visual field indicated other disease. One eye from each patient and individual was included in the study, the eye with the least field loss and a randomly designated normal eye, respectively. Simultaneous stereoscopic optic disc photography was performed on each specified eye. Three experienced observers viewed the resultant stereoscopic image of each nerve head using a Z screen, recorded a subjective clinical diagnosis, and undertook digital stereoscopic planimetry. Separate linear regression analysis was performed, post hoc, from the planimetric results for each observer of the logarithm of neuroretinal rim (NRR) against optic disc area derived from each normal eye. Eyes with NRR areas below the 95th prediction interval of the normal cohort were then classified as glaucomatous. Sensitivity and specificity for the detection of glaucomatous optic neuropathy. With subjective stereoscopic analysis, sensitivity for glaucoma detection among the 3 observers was 80.8%, 76.9%, and 90.4%, with respective specificities of 94.4%, 79.6%, and 79.6%. Regression analysis of the NRR in 30° segments gave sensitivities between 69.2% and 80.8% and specificities between 83.3% and 90.7%. A combination of the subjective and quantitative analysis did not significantly improve discrimination. The subjective analysis of digital stereoscopic images provides a useful method for the discrimination of normal and glaucomatous optic nerves. Planimetric analysis does not significantly improve the diagnostic precision of this technique." @default.
• W2112559287 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2112559287 creator A5024606893 @default.
• W2112559287 creator A5051388468 @default.
• W2112559287 creator A5059974693 @default.
• W2112559287 creator A5060926990 @default.
• W2112559287 creator A5078245900 @default.
• W2112559287 creator A5078538276 @default.
• W2112559287 creator A5082789372 @default.
• W2112559287 date "2005-05-01" @default.
• W2112559287 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2112559287 title "Discrimination of Glaucomatous Optic Neuropathy by Digital Stereoscopic Analysis" @default.
• W2112559287 cites W1470228725 @default.
• W2112559287 cites W1484783462 @default.
• W2112559287 cites W1564203607 @default.
• W2112559287 cites W1630993018 @default.
• W2112559287 cites W1803904511 @default.
• W2112559287 cites W1896510086 @default.
• W2112559287 cites W1970548437 @default.
• W2112559287 cites W1971418520 @default.
• W2112559287 cites W1972443523 @default.
• W2112559287 cites W1984513859 @default.
• W2112559287 cites W1988811533 @default.
• W2112559287 cites W1991693697 @default.
• W2112559287 cites W1992202731 @default.
• W2112559287 cites W1996771365 @default.
• W2112559287 cites W2006115799 @default.
• W2112559287 cites W2011481648 @default.
• W2112559287 cites W2011638946 @default.
• W2112559287 cites W2020144801 @default.
• W2112559287 cites W2033278783 @default.
• W2112559287 cites W2083497687 @default.
• W2112559287 cites W2088591734 @default.
• W2112559287 cites W2096741933 @default.
• W2112559287 cites W2096913021 @default.
• W2112559287 cites W2121727279 @default.
• W2112559287 cites W2123421370 @default.
• W2112559287 cites W2158147305 @default.
• W2112559287 cites W596865863 @default.
• W2112559287 cites W635399258 @default.
• W2112559287 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.11.056" @default.
• W2112559287 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15878066" @default.
• W2112559287 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W2112559287 type Work @default.
• W2112559287 sameAs 2112559287 @default.
• W2112559287 citedByCount "30" @default.
• W2112559287 countsByYear W21125592872012 @default.
• W2112559287 countsByYear W21125592872013 @default.
• W2112559287 countsByYear W21125592872014 @default.
• W2112559287 countsByYear W21125592872015 @default.
• W2112559287 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2112559287 hasAuthorship W2112559287A5024606893 @default.
• W2112559287 hasAuthorship W2112559287A5051388468 @default.
• W2112559287 hasAuthorship W2112559287A5059974693 @default.
• W2112559287 hasAuthorship W2112559287A5060926990 @default.
• W2112559287 hasAuthorship W2112559287A5078245900 @default.
• W2112559287 hasAuthorship W2112559287A5078538276 @default.
• W2112559287 hasAuthorship W2112559287A5082789372 @default.
• W2112559287 hasConcept C118487528 @default.
• W2112559287 hasConcept C119767625 @default.
• W2112559287 hasConcept C126057942 @default.
• W2112559287 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W2112559287 hasConcept C2776058522 @default.
• W2112559287 hasConcept C2776148792 @default.
• W2112559287 hasConcept C2776474195 @default.
• W2112559287 hasConcept C2778233873 @default.
• W2112559287 hasConcept C2778257484 @default.
• W2112559287 hasConcept C2778527774 @default.
• W2112559287 hasConcept C2779735895 @default.
• W2112559287 hasConcept C2780248432 @default.
• W2112559287 hasConcept C2780837183 @default.
• W2112559287 hasConcept C2983497740 @default.
• W2112559287 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2112559287 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2112559287 hasConceptScore W2112559287C118487528 @default.
• W2112559287 hasConceptScore W2112559287C119767625 @default.
• W2112559287 hasConceptScore W2112559287C126057942 @default.
• W2112559287 hasConceptScore W2112559287C154945302 @default.
• W2112559287 hasConceptScore W2112559287C2776058522 @default.
• W2112559287 hasConceptScore W2112559287C2776148792 @default.
• W2112559287 hasConceptScore W2112559287C2776474195 @default.
• W2112559287 hasConceptScore W2112559287C2778233873 @default.
• W2112559287 hasConceptScore W2112559287C2778257484 @default.
• W2112559287 hasConceptScore W2112559287C2778527774 @default.
• W2112559287 hasConceptScore W2112559287C2779735895 @default.
• W2112559287 hasConceptScore W2112559287C2780248432 @default.
• W2112559287 hasConceptScore W2112559287C2780837183 @default.
• W2112559287 hasConceptScore W2112559287C2983497740 @default.
• W2112559287 hasConceptScore W2112559287C41008148 @default.
• W2112559287 hasConceptScore W2112559287C71924100 @default.
• W2112559287 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W2112559287 hasLocation W21125592871 @default.
• W2112559287 hasLocation W21125592872 @default.
• W2112559287 hasOpenAccess W2112559287 @default.
• W2112559287 hasPrimaryLocation W21125592871 @default.
• W2112559287 hasRelatedWork W1970874370 @default.
• W2112559287 hasRelatedWork W1971786882 @default.
• W2112559287 hasRelatedWork W1981677689 @default.

• next