ArticleEye (London, England)2015
Clinical relevance of quantified fundus autofluorescence in diabetic macular oedema.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fundus autofluorescence imaging: systematic review of test accuracy for the diagnosis and monitoring of retinal conditions.Eye (London, England) · 2017Pooled it
- Utility of Fundus Autofluorescence and Optical Coherence Tomography in Measuring Retinal Vascular Thickness, Macular Density, and Ophthalmic Manifestations in Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Current status and future possibilities of retinal imaging in diabetic retinopathy care applicable to low- and medium-income countries.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2021Review
- Quantitative Color Fundus Autofluorescence in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Granular lesions of short-wavelength and near-infrared autofluorescence in diabetic macular oedema.Eye (London, England) · 2019Article
- Retinal Imaging Techniques for Diabetic Retinopathy Screening.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2016Review
- Autofluorescence indexes as biomarkers for antiangiogenic loading dose outcome in diabetic macular edema.Therapeutic advances in ophthalmologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo quantify the signal intensity of fundus autofluorescence (FAF) and evaluate its association with visual function and optical coherence tomography (OCT) findings in diabetic macular oedema (DMO).
methodsWe reviewed 103 eyes of 78 patients with DMO and 30 eyes of 22 patients without DMO. FAF images were acquired using Heidelberg Retina Angiograph 2, and the signal levels of FAF in the individual subfields of the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study grid were measured. We evaluated the association between quantified FAF and the logMAR VA and OCT findings.
resultsOne hundred and three eyes with DMO had lower FAF signal intensity levels in the parafoveal subfields compared with 30 eyes without DMO. The autofluorescence intensity in the parafoveal subfields was associated negatively with logMAR VA and the retinal thickness in the corresponding subfields. The autofluorescence levels in the parafoveal subfield, except the nasal subfield, were lower in eyes with autofluorescent cystoid spaces in the corresponding subfield than in those without autofluorescent cystoid spaces. The autofluorescence level in the central subfield was related to foveal cystoid spaces but not logMAR VA or retinal thickness in the corresponding area.
conclusionsQuantified FAF in the parafovea has diagnostic significance and is clinically relevant in DMO.
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.