en Ophthalmology Ophthalmology Meta-analysis Article <span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="text-justify:kashida"><span style="text-kashida:0%"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-style:italic"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-style:normal">Background: </span></span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-style:normal">Different devices have diverse accuracy in diagnosing glaucoma, and therefore choosing the best device is challenging. Thereby, this study was conducted to evaluate the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of imaging devices in glaucoma and explore the need for an updated meta-analysis on this issue.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br> <span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="text-justify:kashida"><span style="text-kashida:0%"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-style:italic"><span style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-style:normal">&nbsp;&nbsp; <b>Methods:</b> In this systematic review and meta-analysis, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for articles published between January 2004 and 2022. Cross-sectional or diagnostic studies were selected, and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were measured.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br> <span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="text-justify:kashida"><span style="text-kashida:0%"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-style:italic"><span style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-style:normal">&nbsp; <b>Results:</b> A total of 28 cross-sectional studies were included for meta-analysis. Devices were divided into 2 groups, based on the optic nerve area and the macular area. For the nerve area, the pooled sensitivity was 77% (CI 95%, 70-83; I2, 90.01%) and the pooled specificity was 89% (CI 95%, 84-92, I2, 93.22%), and for the macular area, the pooled sensitivity was 87% (CI 95%, 80-92, I2, 91.79%), and the pooled specificity was 90% (CI 95%, 84-94; I2, 86.30%). We analyzed each device separately. For optical coherence tomography(OCT), the pooled sensitivity was 85% (CI 95%, 81-89; I2, 87.82%) and the pooled specificity was 89% (CI 95%, 85-92; I2, 84.39%); for Heidelberg retinal tomography (HRT), the pooled sensitivity was 72% (CI 95%, 57-83; I2, 88.94%) and the pooled specificity was 79% (CI 95%, 62-90; I2, 98.61%), and for optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA), the pooled sensitivity was 82% (CI 95%, 66-91; I2, 93.71%) and the pooled specificity was 93% (CI 95%, 87-96; I2, 64.72%).</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br> <span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="text-justify:kashida"><span style="text-kashida:0%"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-style:italic"><span style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-style:normal">&nbsp;&nbsp; <b>Conclusion:</b> The macular area was more sensitive and specific than the optic nerve head. Furthermore, OCT had higher sensitivity, and OCTA had higher specificity when compared with other imaging devices.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br> <span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="text-justify:kashida"><span style="text-kashida:0%"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-style:italic"><span style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-style:normal"></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br> <br> <span style="font-size:14pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="text-justify:kashida"><span style="text-kashida:0%"><span style="line-height:150%"><span new="" roman="" style="font-family:" times=""><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span> Diagnostic Imaging, Glaucoma, Heidelberg Retinal Tomography, Meta-analysis, Optical Coherence Tomography, Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography, Systematic Review 302 318 http://mjiri.iums.ac.ir/browse.php?a_code=A-10-7653-1&slc_lang=en&sid=1 Yousef Moradi Yousefmoradi211@yahoo.com 200319475328460076779 200319475328460076779 No Social Determinant of the Health Research Center, Research Institute for Health Development, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran Asra Moradkhani asra.moradkhani@muk.com 200319475328460076780 200319475328460076780 No Student Research Committee, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences Sanandaj, Iran Mohsen Pourazizi m.pourazizi@yahoo.com 200319475328460076781 200319475328460076781 No Isfahan Eye Research Center, Department of Ophthalmology, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran Leila Rezaei Leyla_rezaei60@yahoo.com 200319475328460076782 200319475328460076782 No Kermanshah University of Medical Science, Kermanshah, Iran Mobin Azami mobin.azami@muk.ac.ir 200319475328460076783 200319475328460076783 Yes Student Research Committee, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences Sanandaj, Iran