Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27416929›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2016

Evaluation of a Micro-Optical Coherence Tomography for the Corneal Endothelium in an Animal Model.

Marcus Ang, Aris Konstantopoulos, Gwendoline Goh, Hla M Htoon, Xinyi Seah, Nyein Chan Lwin, Xinyu Liu, Si Chen, Linbo Liu, Jodhbir S Mehta

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–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.

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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Biomedical optics express · 2019
    Article
  12. [Corneal dystrophies in optical coherence tomography].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2019
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

10 authors.

Marcus AngSingapore National Eye Centre, Singapore.
Aris KonstantopoulosSingapore National Eye Centre, Singapore.
Gwendoline GohSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore.
Hla M HtoonSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore.
Xinyi SeahSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore.
Nyein Chan LwinSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore.
Xinyu LiuSchool of Electrical &Electronic Engineering and School of Chemical &Biomedical Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Si ChenSchool of Electrical &Electronic Engineering and School of Chemical &Biomedical Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Linbo LiuSchool of Electrical &Electronic Engineering and School of Chemical &Biomedical Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Jodhbir S MehtaSingapore National Eye Centre, Singapore.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent developments in optical coherence tomography (OCT) systems for the cornea have limited resolution or acquisition speed. In this study we aim to evaluate the use of a 'micro-OCT' (μOCT ~1 μm axial resolution) compared to existing imaging modalities using animal models of corneal endothelial disease. We used established cryoinjury and bullous keratopathy models in Sprague Dawley rats comparing ex vivo μOCT imaging in normal and diseased eyes to (1) histology; (2) in vivo confocal microscopy (IVCM); and (3) scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Qualitative and quantitative comparisons amongst imaging modalities were performed using mean endothelial cell circularity [(4π × Area)/Perimeter(2)] with coefficient of variation (COV). We found that μOCT imaging was able to delineate endothelial cells (with nuclei), detect inflammatory cells, and corneal layers with histology-like resolution, comparable to existing imaging modalities. The mean endothelial cell circularity score was 0.88 ± 0.03, 0.87 ± 0.04 and 0.88 ± 0.05 (P = 0.216) for the SEM, IVCM and μOCT respectively, with SEM producing homogenous endothelial cell images (COV = 0.028) compared to the IVCM (0.051) and μOCT (0.062). In summary, our preliminary study suggests that the μOCT may be useful for achieving non-contact, histology-like images of the cornea for endothelial cell evaluation, which requires further development for in vivo imaging.

Indexed as

Disease Models, AnimalAnimalsCorneal DiseasesEndothelium, CornealHumansMicroscopy, ConfocalMicroscopy, Electron, ScanningRats, Sprague-DawleyReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityTomography, Optical Coherence

Identifiers

PMID27416929
PMCPMC4945948

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.