ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2025
Comparative Evaluation of Field of View Across Widefield Retinal Imaging Systems.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Ultra-widefield retinal imaging is critical for diagnosing peripheral retinal diseases, but discrepancies in field of view (FOV) definitions hinder system comparisons. This study aims to evaluate the FOV performance of six widefield or ultra-widefield retinal imaging systems using a simplified eye phantom model and in vivo demonstration in a healthy subject. Methods: A custom eye phantom model with concentric ring patterns and geometric markers was used to assess FOV and distortion across six imaging systems, including Nikon Optos, Natus RetCam, Intalight Dream OCT, Siloam Vision's contact and non-contact iCam-OCT, and OHSU table-top UWF OCT. The phantom model eliminated anatomic variability, enabling controlled measurements. Imaging was also performed on a healthy emmetropic adult under identical conditions for qualitative validation. Results: The evaluation revealed significant variations in peripheral coverage and distortion among systems. Nikon Optos and Siloam Vision contact iCam-OCT achieved the widest FOVs, whereas RetCam and Intalight Dream OCT had more limited coverage. Radial and tangential distortion increased with eccentricity, with Nikon Optos exhibiting the highest distortion. In vivo imaging confirmed phantom-based findings regarding FOV coverage and distortion across these systems. Conclusions: FOV performance varies across imaging systems, and the measured FOVs were generally consistent with the manufacturers stated specifications. Distortion increased with eccentricity and differed among devices. The phantom model provided an objective method for quantifying FOV and distortion, with findings supported by in vivo imaging. Translational Relevance: This work offers a practical method for evaluating widefield imaging systems, supporting informed system selection, and emphasizing consistent evaluation criteria in clinical practice.
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.