Tien Yin Wong

2 months ago | nature.com | Kelvin Teo |Ngiap Chuan Tan |Gavin S Tan |Tien Yin Wong |Stanley S. J. Poh |Serene S. C. Sim | +4 more

To identify diabetic maculopathy features from photographic screening that are predictive of treatment on referral to a tertiary care centre. Retrospective review of participants who underwent screening by Singapore Integrated Diabetic Retinopathy Programme from 2015 to 2019. Participants underwent visual acuity (VA) test and non-stereoscopic retinal photographs. Maculopathy features include haemorrhages, microaneurysm and hard exudates (HE), stratified by inner and outer zone (1 and 1-2 disc diameter from fovea respectively) and VA of 6/12. Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) treatment was defined as intravitreal injection or macular photocoagulation up to 540 days from point of referral. 16,712 patients screened had referable eye disease. Out of 3518 maculopathy suspects, 281 (8.0%) received DMO treatment within 540 days. Those treated for DMO had shorter duration of diabetes (6.90 vs. 9.13 years, p < 0.001), higher total cholesterol (4.65 ± 1.20 vs. 4.36 ± 1.13 mmol/L, p = 0.001) and LDL cholesterol (2.59 ± 1.05 vs. 2.37 ± 0.93 mmol/L, p < 0.05) than those without treatment. High-risk features, including inner zone haemorrhages with VA ≤ 6/12 (HR 12.0, 95% CI: 5.5–25.9) and inner zone hard exudates (HR 7.4, 95% CI: 3.4–15.8), significantly increased the likelihood of requiring DMO treatment compared to low-risk features. Higher body mass index is protective of DMO treatment in mild non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (HR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.73–0.97). Haemorrhages, microaneurysms and HE within inner zone are important photographic features predictive of DMO treatment. VA is an important stratification for screening especially in patients with only visible haemorrhages.

Jul 20, 2024 | nature.com | Keean Nanji |Amin Hatamnejad |Mark Phillips |Dena Zeraatkar |Tien Yin Wong |Robyn Guymer | +8 more

The fragility index (FI) of a meta-analysis evaluates the extent that the statistical significance can be changed by modifying the event status of individuals from included trials. Understanding the FI improves the interpretation of the results of meta-analyses and can help to inform changes to clinical practice. This review determined the fragility of ophthalmology-related meta-analyses. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials with binary outcomes published in a journal classified as ‘Ophthalmology’ according to the Journal Citation Report or an Ophthalmology-related Cochrane Review were included. An iterative process determined the FI of each meta-analysis. Multivariable linear regression modeling evaluated the relationship between the FI and potential predictive factors in statistically significant and non-significant meta-analyses. 175 meta-analyses were included. The median FI was 6 (Q1–Q3: 3–12). This meant that moving 6 outcomes from one group to another would reverse the study’s findings. The FI was 1 for 18 (10.2%) of the included meta-analyses and was ≤5 for 75 (42.4%) of the included meta-analyses. The number of events (p < 0.001) and the p-value (p < 0.001) were the best predictors of the FI in both significant and non-significant meta-analyses. The statistical significance of meta-analyses in ophthalmology often hinges on the outcome of a few patients. The number of events and the p-value are the most important factors in determining the fragility of the evidence. The FI is an easily interpretable measure that can supplement the reader’s understanding of the strength of the evidence being presented. CRD42022377589