Table 2 Test accuracy of individual studies and pooled results from meta-analysis.

From: Diagnostic accuracy of OCTA and OCT for myopic choroidal neovascularisation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

 

Outcome (95% CI)

Outcome (95% CI)

OCTA compared to FA

Individual studiesa

TP

FP

FN

TN

Sensitivity

Specificity

Bagchi 2019

19

1

4

3

0.83 (0.61–0.95)

0.75 (0.19–0.99)

Miyata 2016

16

0

1

4

0.94 (0.71–1.00)

1.00 (0.40–1.00)

Querques 2017

19

2

2

30

0.90 (0.70–0.99)

0.94 (0.79–0.99)

Pooled results from meta-analysisb

Sensitivity

Specificity

0.89 (0.78–0.94)

0.93 (0.79–0.98)

LR of a positive test

LR of a negative test

11.8 (3.96–35.25)

0.12 (0.061–0.25)

Positive PV

Negative PV

0.95 (0.79–0.99)

0.85 (0.61–0.94)

SD-OCT compared to FA

Individual studiesa

TP

FP

FN

TN

Sensitivity

Specificity

Bagchi 2019

23

4

0

0

1.00 (0.85–1.00)

0.00 (0.00–0.60)

Milani 2016

48

0

1

16

0.98 (0.89–1.00)

1.00 (0.79–1.00)

Su 2014

16

0

0

53

1.00 (0.79–1.00)

1.00 (0.93–1.00)

Pooled results from meta-analysisb

Sensitivity

Specificity

0.99 (0.91–1.00)

unestimatable

LR of a positive test

LR of a negative test

unestimatable

0.01 (0.001–0.095)

Positive PV

Negative PV

unestimatable

unestimatable

  1. CI confidence interval, OCTA optical coherence tomography angiography, FA fluorescein angiography, TP true positive, FP false positive, FN false negative, TN true negative, LR likelihood ratio, PV predictive value, SD-OCT spectral domain optical coherence tomography.
  2. aCalculated using RevMan Ver 5.4.1.
  3. bCalculated using SAS macro MetaDAS v1.3.