Abstract
The survey aims to explore the use of existing nomenclature and current clinical and multimodal imaging (MMI) approach in diagnosing white dot syndromes (WDS) among uveitis and retina specialists.PURPOSEThe survey aims to explore the use of existing nomenclature and current clinical and multimodal imaging (MMI) approach in diagnosing white dot syndromes (WDS) among uveitis and retina specialists.The members of the International Uveitis Study Group (IUSG) task force MUV (Multimodal imaging in UVeitis) developed a survey. The questionnaire, created using Qualtrics, consisted of 22 questions. The responses were compared against regions, workplace setting, sub-specialty, and experience of the participants.METHODSThe members of the International Uveitis Study Group (IUSG) task force MUV (Multimodal imaging in UVeitis) developed a survey. The questionnaire, created using Qualtrics, consisted of 22 questions. The responses were compared against regions, workplace setting, sub-specialty, and experience of the participants.A total of 432 participants initiated the background section; 343 initiated the investigation section and 263/343 completed the survey (76.7%). The majority (43.7%) reported a specialty/practice focus mostly on uveitis, 32.2% on uveitis and retina, and 20.1% mostly on retina. Specifically, 55.7% were in practice > 10 years post-fellowship and 65.8% worked in academic settings. The term WDS was not universally used in clinical practice, with no significant differences by region, subspecialty, experience, workplace setting or number of WDS patients managed in the prior year (p > 0.01). Nearly 90% of participants reported using MMI to diagnose WDS. More than 70% advocated redefining the nomenclature and classification of WDS based on the primary anatomical location of disease using MMI without significant regional or professional differences (p > 0.01).RESULTSA total of 432 participants initiated the background section; 343 initiated the investigation section and 263/343 completed the survey (76.7%). The majority (43.7%) reported a specialty/practice focus mostly on uveitis, 32.2% on uveitis and retina, and 20.1% mostly on retina. Specifically, 55.7% were in practice > 10 years post-fellowship and 65.8% worked in academic settings. The term WDS was not universally used in clinical practice, with no significant differences by region, subspecialty, experience, workplace setting or number of WDS patients managed in the prior year (p > 0.01). Nearly 90% of participants reported using MMI to diagnose WDS. More than 70% advocated redefining the nomenclature and classification of WDS based on the primary anatomical location of disease using MMI without significant regional or professional differences (p > 0.01).These results underscore the widespread adoption of MMI among uveitis and retina specialists in the characterization of entities traditionally grouped under the term WDS. Respondents strongly agree that MMI provides a precise distinction between these posterior uveitis, advocating for the overcoming of the clinical term WDS in favor of a patho-anatomic redefinition.CONCLUSIONThese results underscore the widespread adoption of MMI among uveitis and retina specialists in the characterization of entities traditionally grouped under the term WDS. Respondents strongly agree that MMI provides a precise distinction between these posterior uveitis, advocating for the overcoming of the clinical term WDS in favor of a patho-anatomic redefinition.