Instrument-based tests for measuring anterior chamber cells in uveitis: a systematic review

Xiaoxuan Liu, Ameenat L Solebo, Livia Faes, Sophie Beese, Tasanee Braithwaite, Matthew Round, Jesse Panthagani, Aditya U Kale, Thomas W McNally, Didar Abdulla, Pearse Keane, David Moore, Alastair Denniston

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)
119 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Purpose: New instrument-based techniques for anterior chamber (AC) cell counting can offer automation and objectivity above clinician assessment. This review aims to identify such instruments and its correlation with clinician estimates.

Methods: Using standard systematic review methodology, we identified and tabulated the outcomes of studies reporting reliability and correlation between instrument-based measurements and clinician AC cell grading.

Results: From 3470 studies, 6 reported correlation between an instrument-based AC cell count to clinician grading. The two instruments were optical coherence tomography (OCT) and laser flare-cell photometry (LFCP). Correlation between clinician grading and LFCP was 0.66–0.87 and 0.06–0.97 between clinician grading and OCT. OCT volume scans demonstrated correlation between 0.75 and 0.78. Line scans in the middle AC demonstrated higher correlation (0.73–0.97) than in the inferior AC (0.06–0.56).

Conclusion: AC cell count by OCT and LFP can achieve high levels of correlation with clinician grading, whilst offering additional advantages of speed, automation, and objectivity.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-12
Number of pages12
JournalOcular Immunology & Inflammation
Early online date16 Aug 2019
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 16 Aug 2019

Keywords

  • Anterior chamber cells
  • aqueous humor
  • aqueous humour
  • diagnostic test
  • laser flare-cell photometry
  • optical coherence tomography
  • systematic review
  • uveitis

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Instrument-based tests for measuring anterior chamber cells in uveitis: a systematic review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this