4.3 Article

Keratoconus diagnosis with optical coherence tomography-based pachymetric scoring system

期刊

JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY
卷 39, 期 12, 页码 1864-1871

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.05.048

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland [R01 EY018184]
  2. Optovue, Inc., Fremont, California, USA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To develop an optical coherence tomography (OCT) pachymetry map-based keratoconus risk scoring system. SETTINGS: Doheny Eye Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, and Brass Eye Center, New York, New York, USA; Department of Ophthalmology, Affiliated Eye Hospital of Wenzhou Medical College, Wenzhou, China. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Fourier-domain OCT was used to acquire corneal pachymetry maps in normal and keratoconus subjects. Pachymetric variables were minimum, minimum-median, superior-inferior (S-I), superonasal-inferotemporal (SN-IT), and the vertical location of the thinnest cornea (Ymin). A logistic regression formula and a scoring system were developed based on these variables. Keratoconus diagnostic accuracy was measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-three eyes of 67 normal subjects and 82 eyes from 52 keratoconus subjects were recruited. The keratoconus logistic regression formula = 0.543 x minimum + 0.541 x (S-I) - 0.886 x (SN-IT) + 0.886 x (minimum-median) + 0.0198 x Ymin. The formula gave better diagnostic power with the area under the ROC than the best single variable (formula = 0.975, minimum = 0.942; P<.01). The diagnostic power with the area under the ROC of the keratoconus risk score (0.949) was similar to that of the formula (P=.08). CONCLUSION: The OCT corneal pachymetry map-based logistic regression formula and the keratoconus risk scoring system provided high accuracy in keratoconus detection. These methods may be useful in keratoconus screening. (C) 2013 ASCRS and ESCRS

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据