Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate agreement and estimate sensitivity and specificity of uveitis specialists' interpretation of ocular photographs in diagnosing Behçet uveitis.Methods: Fourteen Turkish uveitis specialists, masked to demographic and clinical features of patients, independently labeled ocular photographs (29 Behçet/30 other diagnoses) as “Behçet uveitis” or “non-Behçet.” Level of agreement was evaluated using kappa statistics. Photographs were categorized based on ocular signs captured and performance of observers.Results: Exact agreement with the correct diagnosis was 56–81%. Seven reviewers correctly labeled more than 70% of photographs. Interobserver agreement among those 7 reviewers revealed moderate (κ = 0.41–0.60) or substantial (κ = 0.61–0.80) agreement in 76% of pairs. Smooth layered hypopyon, superficial retinal infiltrate with retinal hemorrhages, and branch retinal vein occlusion with vitreous haze were correctly recognized as Behçet uveitis by majority of reviewers.Conclusions: There are ocular signs of Behçet disease that can be considered diagnostic even in the absence of any other clinical information.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
