ArticleThe British journal of ophthalmology2005
An interinstitutional comparative study and validation of computer aided drusen quantification.
Article in The British journal of ophthalmology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automation of Macular Degeneration Classification in the AREDS Dataset, Using a Novel Neural Network Design.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Article
- Multimodal Retinal Image Analysis via Deep Learning for the Diagnosis of Intermediate Dry Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Feasibility Study.Journal of ophthalmology · 2020Article
- JPEG and raw image files compared to direct measurement of the breast region.Acta cirurgica brasileira · 2020Article
- Automated Retinal Image Analysis for Evaluation of Focal Hyperpigmentary Changes in Intermediate Age-Related Macular Degeneration.Translational vision science & technology · 2016Article
- Agreement between clinical estimation and a new quantitative analysis by Photoshop software in fundus and angiographic image variables.International ophthalmology · 2009Article
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
aimsTo assess the portability and clinical applicability of a software program based on Photoshop (Adobe Systems Inc, San Jose, CA, USA) for digital drusen quantification.
methodsIndependent graders from the Digital Fundus Photo Reading Center of Columbia University and King's College Hospital used macular background levelling software to quantify the percentage of drusen in the central and middle Wisconsin subfields. 100 images of consecutive patients with choroidal neovascularisation in one eye and significant drusen in the other eye were analysed to determine suitability, and 10 were chosen for assessment by this software.
resultsOf the 10 images used in the interinstitutional validation, the random effects ANOVA for the central and middle subfields showed a high degree of interobserver agreement. The ICC for interobserver reliability was 0.83 (95% CI: 67 to 95) for the central subfield and 0.84 (95% CI: 69 to 99) for the middle subfield. Overall agreement with the manual grading results was good and the within patient coefficient of variation was about 20% for all the pairwise comparisons between observers and the manual stereo gradings. Of the 100 images used to assess practical applicability of the software, 79 were suitable for semiautomated analysis. 13 had extensive mixed retinal pigment epithelial (RPE) changes limiting drusen identification, five had a significant number of reticular drusen, which are poorly identified by the software, and three had multiple small areas of RPE atrophy, which are difficult to distinguish from drusen.
conclusionsThe software was successfully used by two institutions demonstrating portability, with good correlation between graders and to the manual stereo grading. Digital drusen quantification was possible in 79% of the images analysed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.