ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Quantitative comparison of a novel wide-field OCT-angiography device with ultrawide-field fluorescein angiography in detecting retinal nonperfusion in vascular retinopathies.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Parameter-Dependent Agreement and Proportional Bias Between a Domestically Developed Scheimpflug-Based Imaging System and Pentacam HR.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReliable assessment of retinal nonperfusion is critical in managing vascular retinopathies. While ultrawide-field fluorescein angiography (UWF-FA) is the clinical standard, it is invasive and dye-dependent. Previous wide-field optical coherence tomography angiography (WF-OCTA) systems have been limited by insufficient peripheral coverage. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first quantitative comparison of DREAM WF-OCTA with UWF-FA. The study leverages the device's increased field of view (≈130° single scan, > 200° montage) and demonstrates that the previously published, semi-automated VMseg approach can also be applied to DREAM data.
methods24 eyes from 13 patients with diabetic retinopathy or retinal vein occlusion underwent both UWF-FA (Optos Silverstone, 200°) and WF-OCTA and were analyzed. The ischemic index (ISI) was calculated for each modality using previously developed semi-automated segmentation (VMseg) for WF-OCTA and manual annotation for UWF-FA. Agreement was assessed using correlation, linear regression, and Bland-Altman analyses.
resultsISI values from WF-OCTA showed strong correlations with UWF-FA (r = 0.92 for central, r = 0.96 for montage). Central WF-OCTA showed good absolute agreement with UWF-FA in mild ischemia, montage WF-OCTA with extended coverage in mild to moderate and partly severe ischemia. However, Bland-Altman analysis revealed proportional bias with increasing underestimation at higher nonperfusion levels, indicating that field of view limitations persist despite technological advances.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that the DREAM OCT™ system with improved peripheral coverage enables reliable non-invasive assessment of retinal ischemia in mild to moderate cases. However, WF-OCTA should be considered complementary to UWF-FA, particularly in severe peripheral ischemia. Semi-automated segmentation enhances reproducibility and supports broader clinical adoption of OCTA in ischemia monitoring.
trial registrationEthics approval was granted by the Institutional Review Board of the Faculty of Medicine at LMU Munich (study ID: 24-0571), and the study was conducted following the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants provided written informed consent before inclusion in the study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.