Skip to main content
. 2022 Dec 2;37(1):21–29. doi: 10.1038/s41433-022-02227-8

Table 2.

Test accuracy of individual studies and pooled results from 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

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.

aCalculated using RevMan Ver 5.4.1.

bCalculated using SAS macro MetaDAS v1.3.