Sightsavers Logo
Research centre
  • Home
  • About us
  • Research approach
  • Research studies and publications
  • Evidence gap maps
Join in:
  • Join in: Facebook
  • Join in: Twitter
  • Join in: Instagram
  • Join in: LinkedIn
  • Join in: YouTube
  • Global
  • Close search bar
    Donate
    • Home
    • About us
    • Research approach
    • Research studies and publications
    • Evidence gap maps

    Optical coherence tomography for glaucoma diagnosis: An evidence based meta-analysis

    Methodological quality of the review: Low confidence

     

    Authors: Kansal V, Armstrong JJ, Pintwala R, Hutnik C

     

    Region: Not reported

     

    Sector: Glaucoma

     

    Sub-sector: Diagnosis

    Equity focus: Patients aged 18 years and older

    Review type: Other review

    Quantitative synthesis method: Meta-analysis

    Qualitative synthesis method: Not applicable

    Background:

    Early detection, monitoring and understanding of changes in the retina are central to the diagnosis of glaucomatous optic neuropathy, and vital to reduce visual loss from this progressive condition.

    Objectives:

    To compare glaucoma diagnostic accuracy of commercially available optical coherence tomography (OCT) devices (Zeiss Stratus, Zeiss Cirrus, Heidelberg Spectralis and Optovue RTVue, and Topcon 3DOCT).

    Main findings:

    A total of 150 studies were included in the review. 67 (44.7%) studies were case-control studies, 73 (48.7%) were cross-sectional studies, and 10 (6.7%) were cohort studies. 34 (22.7%) used visual field as a reference standard, six (4.0%) used disc appearance, 110 (73.3%) used a combination of structural and functional criteria. 55 studies examined the Zeiss Cirrus OCT, 49 studies assessed Zeiss Stratus OCT, 23 studies evaluated Heidelberg Spectralis, 38 studies examined Optovue RTVue, and 14 studies evaluated the Topcon 3D-OCT. There were 50.0% male, and 50.0% female glaucoma patients (reported in 150 studies). Controls were 46.5% male, 53.5% female (reported in 109 studies). The mean age of glaucoma patients was 58.8 ± 11.2 and of controls was 54.1 ± 11.1.

    The authors note that the overall methodological quality of all included studies was strong in terms of risk of bias and applicability to the research question. Of note, there was an unclear risk of bias in patient selection for 59 (39.3%) studies. This was largely due to inadequate reporting of patient selection methods in these manuscripts; thus, risk of bias was unable to be ascertained.

    The studies included 16,104 glaucomatous and 11,543 normal control eyes. Key findings reported by the authors include: AUC-ROC of glaucoma diagnosis for retinal nerve fiber (RNFL) average for all glaucoma patients was 0.897 (0.887±0.906, n = 16,782 patient eyes), for macula ganglion cell complex (GCC) was 0.885 (0.869±0.901, n = 4841 eyes), for macula ganglion cell inner plexiform layer (GCIPL) was 0.858 (0.835±0.880, n = 4,211 eyes), and for total macular thickness was 0.795 (0.754± 0.834, n = 1,063 eyes).

    Based on the findings, the authors concluded that the classification capability was similar across all five OCT devices. More diagnostically favorable AUC-ROCs were demonstrated in patients with increased glaucoma severity. Diagnostic accuracy of RNFL and segmented macular regions (GCIPL, GCC) scans were similar and higher than total macular thickness. This study provides a synthesis of contemporary evidence with features of robust inclusion criteria and large sample size.

    Methodology: 

    All studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of OCT for detection of glaucoma were considered for inclusion in this review. The authors included studies with a broad gold standard clinical practice. Patient were 18 years of age or above. Included studies assessed at least one of five devices, namely Stratus OCT (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany), Cirrus OCT (Carl Zeiss Meditec), Spectralis OCT (Heidelberg Engineering Inc., Heidelberg, Deutschland), RTVue (Optovue Inc., Freemont, United States), and 3D-OCT (Topcon, Tokyo, Japan).

    The authors conducted a search on the following databases: MEDLINE (Ovid MEDLINE(R) Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily, Ovid MEDLINE and Versions(R)), EMBASE (Embase Classic+Embase), CINAHL, Cochrane Library1 (Wiley Library), Web of Science, and BIOSIS. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion. Quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies used QUADAS version2.

    The authors conducted a meta-analysis using MedCalc. Meta-analysis for the AUC-ROC was selected instead of other measures such as sensitivity and specificity. The authors note that AUC-ROC reflects both the sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic test, can be compared across studies, and can be combined between similar studies when measures of uncertainty (standard error (SE) or confidence interval (CI)) are provided.

    Applicability/external validity:

    The authors note that as the goal of this investigation was to maximize generalizability and applicability to clinical practice, a broad gold standard was accepted for inclusion – that is, white on white automated perimetry, optic disc appearance (clinically or by photograph), or a combination thereof. Therefore, the authors note that findings may provide guidance to clinicians when navigating this rapidly evolving diagnostic area characterized by numerous options.

    Geographic focus:

    Not reported

    Summary of quality assessment:

    Overall, there is low confidence in the conclusions about the effects of this study. The authors did not conduct a thorough search of the literature to ensure that all relevant studies were included in the review. In addition, it is not clear if the authors avoided bias whilst extracting data of included studied studies, which may impact in the reliability of findings.

    Publication source:

    Kansal V, Armstrong JJ, Pintwala R, Hutnik C (2018) Optical coherence tomography for glaucoma diagnosis: An evidence based meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2018 Jan 4;13(1):e0190621

    source

    Sightsavers Logo
    Research centre
    • Join in:
    • Join in: Facebook
    • Join in: X
    • Join in: Instagram
    • Join in: LinkedIn
    • Join in: YouTube

    Protecting sight, fighting disease and promoting equality for all

  • Accessibility
  • Sightsavers homepage
  • Our policies
  • Media centre
  • Contact us
  • Jobs
  • Cookies and privacy Terms and conditions Modern slavery statement Safeguarding

    © 2025 by Sightsavers, Inc., Business Address for all correspondence: One Boston Place, Suite 2600, Boston, MA 02108.

    Our website uses cookies

    To make sure you have a great experience on our site, we’d like your consent to use cookies. These will collect anonymous statistics to personalise your experience.

    Manage preferences

    You have the option to enable non-essential cookies, which will help us enhance your experience and improve our website.

    Essential cookiesAlways on

    These enable our site to work correctly, for example by storing page settings. You can disable these by changing your browser settings, but some parts of our website will not work as expected.

    Analytics cookies

    To improve our website, we’d like to collect anonymous data about how you use the site, such as which pages you read, the device you’re using, and whether your visit includes a donation. This is completely anonymous, and is never used to profile individual visitors.

    Advertising cookies

    To raise awareness about our work, we’d like to show you Sightsavers adverts as you browse the web. By accepting these cookies, our advertising partners may use anonymous information to show you our adverts on other websites you visit. If you do not enable advertising cookies, you will still see adverts on other websites, but they may be less relevant to you. For info, see the Google Ads privacy policy.