Table 3.

Comparison of recent cuticular drusen studies.

Author(s), year	No. of patients	Sex (female:male)	Mean Age (years)	Region	Imaging tools for diagnosis of CD	GA (%)	Neovascular AMD (%)	AVL (%)
Cohen et al., 199414	19	13:6	61.4	France	CFP, FAa	0	31.6c	100d,e
Barbazetto et al., 20076	28	17:11	65.9	United States	CFP, AF, FAb	3.6d	3.6d	100d,e
Boon et al., 200810	30	20:10	53.3	Netherlands	CFP, NIR, OCT, AF, FAa	33.3d	16.7d	26.7d
Boon et al., 201312	198	–	–	Netherlands	CFP, RF, NIR, OCT, AF, FAa, ICGA	–	56d	–
Balaratnasingam et al., 20184	120	72:48	57.9	United States, Australia, France	CFP, RF, NIR, OCT, AF, FAb, ICGA	25.0c	12.5c	24.2c
Sakurada et al., 201913	12	8:4	60.8	Japan	CFP, NIR, OCT, AF, FAa, ICGA	8.3c	4.2c	0
Sakurada et al., 201919,f	38	35:3	59.9	United States	CFP, FAF, OCT, FAa	14.5f	2.6f	–
Current study, 2018	81	67:14	66.6	Korea	CFP, RF, NIR, OCT, AF, FAa, ICGA	18.5c	3.7c	1.2c

– unknown, AF fundus autofluorescence, AMD age-related macular degeneration, AVL acquired vitelliform lesion, CD cuticular drusen, CFP color fundus photography, FA fluorescein angiography, GA geographic atrophy, ICGA indocyanine green angiography, NIR near-infrared, OCT optical coherence tomography, RF red-free imaging.

^aFA was performed in all patients.

^bFA was performed in selected patients.

^c% of eyes.

^d% of patients.

^ePatients who had both vitelliform or pseudovitelliform detachment and cuticular drusen were included.

^fBaseline cross-sectional data before exclusion.