ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Comparison of Clinician Review Time and Confidence with Optical Coherence Tomography Digital versus Print-Based Workflows: A Pilot Observer Study.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is essential for the management of retinal disease. Digitalization is a potential means of optimizing work practices and improving confidence in treatment decisions. This study compared digital and print/analog image review workflows for OCT images of eyes that underwent intravitreal injection (IVI). Methods: This pilot study was an observer based workflow comparison study. Ten retinal specialists evaluated the OCT image sets of 30 eyes that had undergone IVI treatment. Each reviewer then rendered a simulated treatment decision (treat or not treat) for the most recent image of each set. The amount of time utilized by each specialist to review an image set or image review time (RT), self-rated decision confidence level, and ease-of-use ratings for digital and analog workflows were compared. Inter- and intra-rater variability was determined using exploratory analyses. Results: The mean RT for print and digital workflows were 55.5 ± 37.2 and 28.6 ± 16.5 seconds, respectively (p = 0.007). The use of digital workflow reduced the mean RT by 48.5%. Stratified by disease chronicity, the digital workflow reduced the mean RT for acute, intermediate, and chronic patients by 35.2, 40.2%, and 59.6%, respectively. Treatment decision confidence levels and ease-of-use ratings were significantly higher when using digital workflows than print workflows. The inter-rater reliability was fair to moderate. Conclusion: Digital image review workflows resulted in a shorter RT, higher treatment decision confidence, and enhanced ease of use. Digital workflows may optimize OCT image review efficiency, while also improving decision-making confidence. Gains in RT efficiency were correlated with disease chronicity.
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.