Cargando…

Red reflex test screening for neonates: A systematic review and meta analysis

Red reflex test (RRT) screening is yet to be a part of the neonate's normal examination before discharge from hospital in a majority of low- and middle-income countries. The purpose was this review was to systematically evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of RRT for the detection of ocular abnorma...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Taksande, Amar, Jameel, Patel Zeeshan, Taksande, Bharati, Meshram, Rewat
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8482932/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34304165
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_3632_20
_version_ 1784577012429488128
author Taksande, Amar
Jameel, Patel Zeeshan
Taksande, Bharati
Meshram, Rewat
author_facet Taksande, Amar
Jameel, Patel Zeeshan
Taksande, Bharati
Meshram, Rewat
author_sort Taksande, Amar
collection PubMed
description Red reflex test (RRT) screening is yet to be a part of the neonate's normal examination before discharge from hospital in a majority of low- and middle-income countries. The purpose was this review was to systematically evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of RRT for the detection of ocular abnormalities in newborns. PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane database of systematic reviews were the data sources. Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) was utilized for quality assessment of bias and applicability. Random effects models were used to summarize sensitivities, specificities, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and respective confidence intervals (CI). The pooled sensitivity, calculated from the meta analysis of 11 studies, was 23% (95% CI: 21–24%) and pooled specificity was 98% (95% CI: 98–98%). The PLR was 32.52 (95% CI: 7.89–134.15), NLR was less than 1 (0.69 [95% CI: 0.55–0.88]), and DOR calculated was 138.48 (95% CI: 23.85–803.97). The area under the curve (AUC) and Q* index for RRT were 0.98 ± 0.02 and 0.95 ± 0.045, respectively. The results of our study justify the conclusion that RRT is a highly sensitive and specific test for the detection of anterior segment abnormalities.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8482932
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84829322021-10-14 Red reflex test screening for neonates: A systematic review and meta analysis Taksande, Amar Jameel, Patel Zeeshan Taksande, Bharati Meshram, Rewat Indian J Ophthalmol Review Article Red reflex test (RRT) screening is yet to be a part of the neonate's normal examination before discharge from hospital in a majority of low- and middle-income countries. The purpose was this review was to systematically evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of RRT for the detection of ocular abnormalities in newborns. PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane database of systematic reviews were the data sources. Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) was utilized for quality assessment of bias and applicability. Random effects models were used to summarize sensitivities, specificities, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and respective confidence intervals (CI). The pooled sensitivity, calculated from the meta analysis of 11 studies, was 23% (95% CI: 21–24%) and pooled specificity was 98% (95% CI: 98–98%). The PLR was 32.52 (95% CI: 7.89–134.15), NLR was less than 1 (0.69 [95% CI: 0.55–0.88]), and DOR calculated was 138.48 (95% CI: 23.85–803.97). The area under the curve (AUC) and Q* index for RRT were 0.98 ± 0.02 and 0.95 ± 0.045, respectively. The results of our study justify the conclusion that RRT is a highly sensitive and specific test for the detection of anterior segment abnormalities. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2021-08 2021-07-26 /pmc/articles/PMC8482932/ /pubmed/34304165 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_3632_20 Text en Copyright: © 2021 Indian Journal of Ophthalmology https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Review Article
Taksande, Amar
Jameel, Patel Zeeshan
Taksande, Bharati
Meshram, Rewat
Red reflex test screening for neonates: A systematic review and meta analysis
title Red reflex test screening for neonates: A systematic review and meta analysis
title_full Red reflex test screening for neonates: A systematic review and meta analysis
title_fullStr Red reflex test screening for neonates: A systematic review and meta analysis
title_full_unstemmed Red reflex test screening for neonates: A systematic review and meta analysis
title_short Red reflex test screening for neonates: A systematic review and meta analysis
title_sort red reflex test screening for neonates: a systematic review and meta analysis
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8482932/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34304165
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_3632_20
work_keys_str_mv AT taksandeamar redreflextestscreeningforneonatesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT jameelpatelzeeshan redreflextestscreeningforneonatesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT taksandebharati redreflextestscreeningforneonatesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT meshramrewat redreflextestscreeningforneonatesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis