Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41584096›Full record

ArticleOphthalmology science2026

Standardization of Imaging Criteria for Detecting Macular Fibrosis in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration.

Usha Chakravarthy, Lajos Csincsik, Kelvin Y C Teo, Marion R Munk, Dilraj S Grewal, Robyn H Guymer, Glenn J Jaffe, Tunde Peto, SriniVas R Sadda, Giovanni Staurenghi and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmology science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

12 authors.

Usha ChakravarthyCentre for Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom.
Lajos CsincsikCentre for Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom.
Kelvin Y C TeoSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore, Singapore.
Marion R MunkAugenarzt-Praxisgemeinschaft Gutblick AG, Pfäffikon, Switzerland.
Dilraj S GrewalDepartment of Ophthalmology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Robyn H GuymerCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Glenn J JaffeDepartment of Ophthalmology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Tunde PetoCentre for Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom.
SriniVas R SaddaDoheny Eye Institute, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
Giovanni StaurenghiEye Clinic, Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences "Luigi Sacco", University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Chui M G CheungSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore, Singapore.
International Retinal Imaging Society Research Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate conventional imaging modalities for detecting fibrosis in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) and to develop a standardized diagnostic workflow. Design: Systematic discussion and grading exercise assessing multiple imaging modalities. Participants: Retina specialists from the International Fibrosis Consensus workgroup and members of the International Retinal Imaging Society. Methods: An international panel assessed the advantages and limitations of 5 imaging modalities-color fundus photography (CFP), fluorescein angiography (FA), spectral domain OCT (SD-OCT), near-infrared reflectance, and fundus autofluorescence-for detecting fibrosis in nAMD. A structured debate was followed by 2 online, masked image grading surveys. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive accuracy of each modality, alone and in combination, were determined. Intergrader agreement was calculated. Imaging features were also correlated with histology in a nonhuman primate laser model. Based on consensus discussions at 2 in-person meetings and survey results, a 2-step diagnostic approach using SD-OCT as the primary modality was proposed. Main Outcome Measures: Recommendation for a standardized approach for diagnosing fibrosis in eyes with nAMD. Results: Among the 5 modalities, SD-OCT was considered essential by all workgroup members. Hyperreflective material on OCT was unanimously identified as a key indicator of fibrosis. However, its limited specificity was acknowledged. In 2 masked grading exercises, SD-OCT showed the highest sensitivity (0.88 and 0.84) but only moderate specificity (0.56 and 0.57). The area under the curve (AUC) for SD-OCT was 0.72 and 0.70. A 2-step strategy combining SD-OCT with CFP or FA improved diagnostic accuracy. Hyperreflective material was defined as material with reflectivity equal to or greater than normal retinal pigment epithelium (RPE), well-defined margins, RPE disruption, and a laminated appearance. Corresponding CFP findings included well-defined yellow/white/gray subretinal lesions, and FA findings included early blocked fluorescence and late staining. This 2-step approach increased AUC to 0.85, with sensitivity of 0.83 and specificity of 0.87. Conclusions: The study establishes a 2-step approach using OCT as the primary modality in clinical studies for the detection of fibrosis. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Indexed as

Age-related macular degenerationAnti-VEGFConsensusFibrosisInternational Retina Imaging Society

Identifiers

PMID41584096
PMCPMC12830330

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.