Accuracy of scanning laser polarimetry, scanning laser tomography, and their combination in a XXXX screening trial.

@entity1 @entity16 @entity726 @entity9999 @entity2788 @entity735
PURPOSE: To compare the usefulness in @entity726 screening of scanning laser polarimetry ( @entity9999 -VCC), scanning laser tomography [Heidelberg retina tomograph II (HRT II)], and their combined evaluation. METHODS: In a nonpopulation-based prepublicized trial, self-recruited white @entity1 were screened for @entity726 with @entity9999 -VCC, HRT II, and by independent clinical examination. Cases with possible @entity726 as found with any of the screening methods underwent a detailed clinical investigation to verify or exclude @entity726 . RESULTS: Of the 136 attendees 118 @entity1 (218 eyes) successfully underwent the @entity9999 -VCC and @entity2788 . Twenty-three eyes (11%) of 13 @entity1 had @entity726 . Seventeen of these @entity735 (74%) had early damage. Evaluated separately, the @entity9999 -VCC screening test (borderline cases grouped with the normal cases) performed best with 96.8% specificity, 89.5% accuracy, 7.5 positive likelihood ratio (PLR), but with only 23.8% sensitivity. Accuracy and PLR for all HRT parameters were <86.4% and <3.7, respectively. Combining different threshold criteria, for @entity9999 -VCC accuracy increased to 90.3% to 90.8% and PLR to 14.0 to 17.7; but for HRT no useful increase was seen (accuracy <86.4% and PLR<4.7 for all combinations). Combination of the best HRT and @entity9999 -VCC criteria resulted in a PLR which was increased compared with the HRT combinations, but decreased compared with the @entity9999 -VCC combinations (PLR<12.7 for all combinations). CONCLUSIONS: In this white screening population with relatively high risk for mild @entity16 , a combination of different @entity9999 -VCC criteria was useful for @entity726 screening; but combinations of HRT criteria or combinations of @entity9999 -VCC criteria with HRT criteria were less good for this purpose.
