Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23620429›Full record

Trial reportInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2013

Methods and reproducibility of grading optimized digital color fundus photographs in the Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 (AREDS2 Report Number 2).

Ronald P Danis, Amitha Domalpally, Emily Y Chew, Traci E Clemons, Jane Armstrong, John Paul SanGiovanni, Frederick L Ferris, AREDS2 Study Group

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00345176 (Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2), which is not on this map. Cited by 77 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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.

NCT00345176 phase3completednot on this map

Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 (AREDS2): A Multi-center, Randomized Trial of Lutein, Zeaxanthin and Omega-3 Long-Chain Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids (Docosahexaenoic Acid [DHA] and Eicosapentaenoic Acid [EPA]) in Age-Related Macular Degeneration

TypeinterventionalSponsorNational Eye Institute (NEI)Ran2006 to 2012Enrolled4,203ConditionsAge-related Macular Degeneration, CataractArmsLutein/zeaxanthin, DHA/EPA, Lutein/zeaxanthin and DHA/EPA
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

77 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Article

17 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors.

Ronald P DanisDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53717, USA. rpdanis@wisc.edu
Amitha Domalpally
Emily Y Chew
Traci E Clemons
Jane Armstrong
John Paul SanGiovanni
Frederick L Ferris
AREDS2 Study Group

Funding

Medical Retina FellowshipZIEEY000487 · NEI · NATIONAL EYE INSTITUTE · PI KEENAN, TIARNAN · 2009 to 2025
$6.6M
The Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 (AREDS2)ZIAEY000485 · NEI · NATIONAL EYE INSTITUTE · PI CHEW, EMILY Y · 2009 to 2015
$990k
PHS HHS HHS-N-260-2005-00007-C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo establish continuity with the grading procedures and outcomes from the historical data of the Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS), color photographic imaging and evaluation procedures for the assessment of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) were modified for digital imaging in the AREDS2. The reproducibility of the grading of index AMD lesion components and for the AREDS severity scale was tested at the AREDS2 reading center.

methodsDigital color stereoscopic fundus photographs from 4203 AREDS2 subjects collected at baseline and annual follow-up visits were optimized for tonal balance and graded according to a standard protocol slightly modified from AREDS. The reproducibility of digital grading of AREDS2 images was assessed by reproducibility exercises, temporal drift (regrading a subset of baseline annually, n = 88), and contemporaneous masked regrading (ongoing, monthly regrade on 5% of submissions, n = 1335 eyes).

resultsIn AREDS2, 91% and 96% of images received replicate grades within two steps of the baseline value on the AREDS severity scale for temporal drift and contemporaneous assessment, respectively (weighted Kappa of 0.73 and 0.76). Historical data for temporal drift in replicate gradings on the AREDS film-based images were 88% within two steps (weighted Kappa = 0.88). There was no difference in AREDS2-AREDS concordance for temporal drift (exact P = 0.57).

conclusionsDigital color grading has nearly the same reproducibility as historical film grading. There is substantial agreement for testing the predictive utility of the AREDS severity scale in AREDS2 as a clinical trial outcome. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00345176.)

Indexed as

Diagnostic Techniques, OphthalmologicalAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFundus OculiHumansMacular DegenerationMaleMiddle AgedPhotographyReproducibility of ResultsSeveso Accidental ReleaseAMDcolor photographic imagingreproducibility

Identifiers

PMID23620429
PMCPMC3706107

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.