↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Sensitivity and specificity of the iVue iWellnessExam™ in detecting retinal and optic nerve disorders

Overview of attention for article published in Eye and Brain, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
5 Mendeley
Title
Sensitivity and specificity of the iVue iWellnessExam™ in detecting retinal and optic nerve disorders
Published in
Eye and Brain, February 2013
DOI 10.2147/eb.s40322
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catherine Awad, Samantha Slotnick, Sanjeev Nath, Jerome Sherman

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess the specificity and sensitivity of the iWellnessExam™ screening protocol available on iVue(®) spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT), in a cohort of confirmed normal subjects and subjects with confirmed disease. In total, 126 of 132 confirmed normal subjects and 101 of 107 subjects with confirmed disease were included for analysis. Of the patients with confirmed disease, 67 had retinal disease, 50 had optic nerve disease, and 16 had both retinal and optic nerve pathology. All subjects were screened on the iWellnessExam protocol. Screen shots of the OD, OS, and OU comparison data were obtained and deidentified for reviewer analysis. Based on these data alone, each subject was sorted by a well trained eye care clinician into one of four categories (1, normal; 2, retinal disease; 3, optic nerve disease; 4, retinal and optic nerve disease). Of the confirmed normal subjects, 125 of 126 were correctly identified as normal (specificity 99%). Retinal and/or optic nerve disease was correctly detected in 97 of 101 patients with confirmed disease (category 2, 3, 4), retinal pathology was correctly detected in 64 of 67 patients with retinal disease (category 2, 4), and optic nerve pathology was properly detected in 45 of 50 patients with optic nerve disease (category 3, 4), with a sensitivity of 96%, 95.5%, and 90%, respectively. The iWellnessExam offers the health care provider an excellent method for identifying eyes at risk using very reliable technology. High specificity and sensitivity was obtained when reviewed by a well trained eye care clinician. It would be valuable to repeat the study with a novice and/or student clinician reviewing the same data set to ascertain interobserver variability, as well as the impact of clinical experience on accurate referral, based on the screening data.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 20%
Unknown 4 80%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 40%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 40%
Professor 1 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 100%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 February 2013.
All research outputs
#23,100,963
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Eye and Brain
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#261,499
of 293,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Eye and Brain
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 0.2. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 293,120 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them