Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26100452›Full record

ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2016

Influence of macular oedema on the measurement of macular pigment optical density.

Simone Thiele, Franziska Georgia Rauscher, Peter Wiedemann, Jens Dawczynski

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 38% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Simone ThieleDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Leipzig, Liebigstrasse 10-14, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Franziska Georgia RauscherDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Leipzig, Liebigstrasse 10-14, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Peter WiedemannDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Leipzig, Liebigstrasse 10-14, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Jens DawczynskiDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Leipzig, Liebigstrasse 10-14, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. jens.dawczynski@medizin.uni-leipzig.de.
University Hospital Leipzig · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe purpose of this study was to determine macular pigment optical density (MPOD) in patients with macular degeneration as well as in patients with non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy.

methodsFifty-one phakic patients with either age-related macular degeneration (60 eyes of 30 patients; average age, 70.9 years) or non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (42 eyes of 21 patients; average age, 61.7 years) were included in this cross-sectional study. Within the groups, patients were divided into those suffering from macular oedema and those with no oedema. An intra-subject comparison between eyes was carried out in both groups. Data were investigated on the basis of the coefficient of determination (R (2)). Macular pigment optical density was measured by fundus reflectometry using the one-wavelength reflection method (Visucam 500; Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany), in conformity with the method described by Schweitzer et al. (2010). We evaluated the maximum optical density in the measurement area (max OD) and the average optical density across the reference area in the measurement area (mean OD). Specifically, the influence of macular oedema on macular pigment optical density was examined. The subsequent measurement of retinal thickness was carried out by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (Spectralis SD-OCT, Heidelberg Engineering GmbH, Heidelberg, Germany).

resultsThe current study included two groups. The first group consisted of patients with non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy, as follows: no macular oedema on either side (max OD: R (2) = 43.2 %, p = 0.16; mean OD: R (2) = 68.7 %, p = 0.04); one-sided macular oedema (max OD: R(2) = 16 %, p = 0.60; mean OD: R(2) = 100 %, p = 0.04); or macular oedema in both eyes (max OD: R(2) = 79.7 %, p < 0.01; mean OD: R(2) = 81.4 %, p < 0.01). The second group comprised patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD), as follows: non-exudative changes on both sides (max OD: R(2) = 64.0 %, p = 0.20; mean OD: R (2) = 16 %, p = 0.60); one-sided exudative macular changes (max OD: R (2) = 50.6 %, p < 0.01; mean OD: R (2) = 20.8 %, p = 0.04); or exudative macular degeneration on both sides (max OD: 3 R (2) = 6.0 %, p = 0.29; mean OD: R (2)= 81.0 %, p = 0.04). The data available presented a correlation of MPOD values of both eyes of an individual within the groups investigated. In this respect, the data of the partner eyes within the group of patients with diabetic retinopathy were more highly correlated with each other than the values of both eyes of patients suffering from age-related macular degeneration.

conclusionsThe present study showed that macular oedema did not seem to have an influence on a valid measurement of MPOD by one-wavelength fundus reflectometry. Thus, meaningful data could also be obtained on patients with exudative retinal changes.

Indexed as

AgedCross-Sectional StudiesDensitometryDiabetic RetinopathyFemaleHumansMacular DegenerationMacular EdemaMacular PigmentMaleMiddle AgedTomography, Optical CoherenceMacular PigmentAge-related macular degenerationDiabetic retinopathyFundus reflectometryMacular oedemaMacular pigment optical densityOne-wavelength reflection methodOptical coherence tomography (OCT)

Identifiers

PMID26100452
OpenAlexW1956406207

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.