Table 1 Characteristic of included studies

1

De Salvo/retrospective

2014

UK

Serous or hemorrhagic PED

1. Classic exudative AMD

2. Myopic CNV

3. Secondary CNV

4. CSCR

5. Poor quality image

6. Disciform scar

51/44

1 OCT grader

ICGA graders

Disagreements were resolved by open adjudications

At least 3 of following criteria:

1. Multiple PED

2. Sharpy peaked PED

3. Notched PED

4. Hyperreflective ring surrounding hyporeflective halo underneath PED

0.95 [0.82–0.99]

0.93 [0.66–1.00]

2

Zhang/retrospective

2016

China

Newly diagnosed wet AMD or PCV

1. High myopia

2. Dry AMD

3. Diabetic retinopathy

4. Large-area subretinal hemorrhage

63/62

1 OCT grader

2 ICGA graders. Disagreements were resolved by open adjudications

Two major criteria plus at least 1 minor criteria or at least 3 of minor criteria as follow:

Major criteria

1. Sharply peaked PED

2. Double-layer sign

Minor criteria

3. Multiple PED

4. Notched PED

5. Hyporeflective halo

6. Intraretinal hard exudate

0.92 [0.74–0.99]

0.89 [0.75–0.97]

3

Chang/retrospective

2016

Korea

Newly diagnosed wet AMD

1. Ocular media opacity

2. End-stage AMD

3. High Myopia

4. Axial length 26.00 mm or greater

5. Immeasurable choroidal thickness

6. Presence of other retinal vascular disorders

7. Subretinal hemorrhage greater than five disc areas in size

263/263

1 OCT grader

2 ICGA graders. Disagreements were resolved by open adjudications

At least three of following criteria:

1. Multiple PED

2. Sharply peaked PED

3. Notched PED

4. Hyperreflective ring surrounding hyporeflective halo underneath PED

5. Intraretinal hard exudate

Or at least two of above criteria plus:

1. Subfoveal choroidal thickness 300 nm

0.90 [0.84–0.94]

0.84 [0.77–0.94]

4

Liu/prospective

2016

China

Newly diagnosed wet AMD

1. Secondary choroidal neovascular disease

2. Massive subretinal hemorrhage

3. Large cicatrical lesions

4. Uveitis, diabetic retinopathy, proliferative retinopathy, epiretinal membrane

5. Previous retinal surgery or intraocular injection

6. Ocular media opacity

7. Associated systematic disorders

188/156

2 OCT graders

Disagreements were resolved by 3rd experienced grader

2 ICGA graders

At least two of following criteria:

1. PED (single or multiple)

2. Double-layer sign

3.Thumb-like polyps (TLP)

0.89 [0.82–0.94]

0.85 [0.75–0.92]

5

Chaikitmongkol/retrospective

2018

Thailand

Newly diagnosed serous or serosanguinous maculopathy

1. Had previous treatment

2. Coexisting retinal abnormality

2. Ocular media opacity

3. Incomplete imaging (ICGA,OCT)

119/116

3 OCT graders

2 ICGA graders

Disagreements were resolved by open adjudications

1. Sharply peaked PED

2. Notched PED

3. Hyperreflective ring surrounding hyporeflective halo underneath PED

4. Double-layer sign

Majority rule opinions of 2/3 graders were determined as final result

0.83 [0.70–0.93]

0.83 [0.72–0.91]

6

Chaikitmongkol/retrospective

2019

Thailand

Newly diagnosed serous or serosanguinous maculopathy

1. Had previous treatment

2. Incomplete imaging (ICGA,OCT)

3. Poor quality image

124/120

3 OCT graders

2 ICGA graders. Disagreements were resolved by open adjudications

1. Multiple PED

2. Sharply peaked PED (angle between 70 and 90)

3. Notched or multilobulated PED

4. Hyperreflective ring surrounding hyporeflective halo underneath PED

5. Double-layer sign

Majority rule opinions of 2/3 graders were determined as final result

0.95 [0.87–0.99]

0.95 [0.86–0.99]

7

Yang/retrospective

2019

China

Newly diagnosed PCV and wet AMD

1. Other ocular diseases

2. Ocular media opacity

3. Systematic disorders that affect the eyes

103/82

2 OCT graders

2 ICGA graders

Disagreements were resolved by open adjudications

1. Multiple PED

2. Sharply peaked PED

3. Notched PED

4. Double-layer sign

5. Bubble sign

6. Pachychoroid

7. Bruch’s membrane depression under serosanguinous PED

0.88 [0.77–0.96]

0.92 [0.81–0.98]