ArticleFrontiers in cell and developmental biology2025
Orally administered fluorescein angiography for ultra-wide-field imaging: is a safe and effective modality across different age groups and fundus diseases?
Article in Frontiers in cell and developmental biology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To comprehensively evaluate the clinical utility, imaging performance, and safety of orally administered fluorescein angiography (oral FA) combined with an ultra-wide-field imaging system in the diagnosis and management of fundus disorders. Methods: This prospective study enrolled 382 patients (676 eyes) aged 4-83 years, comprising 164 females and 218 males. All participants underwent oral FA after ingesting a weight-based dose of fluorescein sodium. Anonymized peak-phase images were independently graded by four retina specialists using a standardized three-parameter scoring system. Images were classified as high, moderate, or poor quality based on total scores. Circulation times (first appearance time, detailed visualization time, and optimal visualization time) and adverse events were systematically recorded. Statistical analyses assessed differences in image quality and timing across age groups and disease categories. Results: Oral FA was successfully performed in all cases. Among 676 eyes, 662 (97.9%) were graded as high quality, 12 (1.8%) as moderate quality, and 2 (0.3%) as poor quality. Clinically useful images were obtained in 99.7% of cases. No significant differences in image quality or circulation times were observed across age groups. However, image quality was significantly higher in retinal degenerative diseases compared to retinal vascular diseases ( Conclusion: Oral FA is a well-tolerated and clinically effective imaging modality that produces high-quality, diagnostically reliable angiograms across all age groups and multiple retinal disease categories. Its non-invasive nature, excellent safety profile, and ability to visualize peripheral pathology support its use as a practical and valuable alternative to conventional IVFA, particularly in pediatric, needle-phobic, or allergy-prone populations.
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.