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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |