Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37395705›Full record

Observational studyTranslational vision science & technology2023

Reliability of Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography Retinal Blood Flow Analyses.

Ella F Courtie, Ahmed Gilani, Nicholas Capewell, Aditya U Kale, Benjamin T K Hui, Xiaoxuan Liu, Giovanni Montesano, Michel Teussink, Alastair K Denniston, Tonny Veenith and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Translational vision science & technology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Ella F CourtieNeuroscience and Ophthalmology research group, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Ahmed GilaniCritical Care Unit, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Nicholas CapewellDepartment of Ophthalmology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, West Midlands, UK.
Aditya U KaleDepartment of Ophthalmology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, West Midlands, UK.
Benjamin T K HuiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, West Midlands, UK.
Xiaoxuan LiuDepartment of Ophthalmology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, West Midlands, UK.
Giovanni MontesanoUniversity of London, London, UK.
Michel TeussinkHeidelberg Engineering GmbH, Heidelberg, Baden-Württemberg, Germany.
Alastair K DennistonNeuroscience and Ophthalmology research group, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Tonny VeenithCritical Care Unit, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Richard J BlanchNeuroscience and Ophthalmology research group, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GBUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust · GBRoyal Navy · GBUniversity of London · GB

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Investigate the association between the optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) metrics derived from different analysis programs to understand the comparability of studies using these different approaches. Methods: Secondary analysis of a prospective observational study (March 2018-September 2021). Forty-four right eyes and 42 left eyes from 44 patients were included. Patients were either undergoing upper gastrointestinal surgery with a critical care stay planned or were already in the critical care unit with sepsis. OCTA scans were obtained in an ophthalmology department or critical care setting. Fourteen OCTA metrics were compared within and between the programs, and agreement was measured by Pearson's R coefficient and intraclass correlation coefficient. Results: Correlation was highest between all Heidelberg metrics and Fractalyse (all >0.84), and lowest between Matlab skeletonized or foveal avascular zone metrics and all other measures (e.g., skeletal fractal dimension and vessel density at -0.02). Agreement between eyes was moderate to excellent in all metrics (0.60-0.90). Conclusions: The significant variability between metrics and programs used for OCTA analysis demonstrates that they are not interchangeable and supports a recommendation for perfusion density metrics to be reported as standard. Translational Relevance: Agreement between different OCTA analyses is variable and not interchangeable. The high agreement between non-skeletonized vessel density metrics suggests that these should be routinely reported.

Indexed as

Macula LuteaRetinal VesselsFluorescein AngiographyHumansReproducibility of ResultsTomography, Optical Coherence

Identifiers

PMID37395705
PMCPMC10324418
OpenAlexW4382918282

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.