Fig 1.
Study flow in this meta-analysis (PRISMA guidelines).
Fig 2.
Methodological quality of included studies using the QUADAS 2 tool.
Table 1.
Summarized study and patient characteristics.
Fig 3.
Forest plot of diagnostic accuracies of RNFL and macular OCT parameters, all glaucoma patients.
Table 2.
Pooled AUROCs of RNFL and macular OCT parameters for all glaucoma patients.
Fig 4.
Forest plot of diagnostic accuracies of RNFL and macular OCT parameters, perimetric glaucoma.
Table 3.
Pooled AUROCs of RNFL and macular OCT parameters for perimetric glaucoma patients.
Fig 5.
Forest plot of diagnostic accuracies of RNFL and macular OCT parameters, pre-perimetric glaucoma.
Table 4.
Pooled AUROCs of RNFL and macular OCT parameters for pre-perimetric glaucoma patients.
Fig 6.
Forest plot of diagnostic accuracies of RNFL and macular OCT parameters, mild glaucoma.
Table 5.
Pooled AUROCs of RNFL and macular OCT parameters for mild glaucoma patients.
Fig 7.
Forest plot of diagnostic accuracies of RNFL and macular OCT parameters, moderate to severe glaucoma.
Table 6.
Pooled AUROCs of RNFL and macular OCT parameters for moderate to severe glaucoma patients.
Fig 8.
Forest plot of diagnostic accuracies of RNFL and macular OCT parameters, myopic patients.
Table 7.
Pooled AUROCs of RNFL and macular OCT parameters for myopic patients.
Table 8.
Technical features of each of the OCT devices studied [27,180].