ReviewEye and vision (London, England)2016
Selective and complementary use of Optical Coherence Tomography and Fluorescein Angiography in retinal practice.
Review in Eye and vision (London, England), 2016. 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.
- Alzheimer's disease pathophysiology in the Retina.Progress in retinal and eye research · 2024Review
- Are optical coherence tomography and fluorescein angiography comparable for detection of macular edema in Behçet uveitis?Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2023Article
- Retinal biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease and vascular cognitive impairment and dementia (VCID): implication for early diagnosis and prognosis.GeroScience · 2020Review
- Early Macular Angiography among Patients with Glaucoma, Ocular Hypertension, and Normal Subjects.Journal of ophthalmology · 2019Article
- Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography: Clinical Utility and Future Directions.Journal of vitreoretinal diseasesReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current field of posterior pole and retinal imaging of the human eye has expanded into detailed analyses of the macula, retinal periphery, individual retinal layers, vitreoretinal interface, imaging of the choroid and the optic nerve head. The challenge in retinal imaging is the enduring pursuit of deeper penetration into tissues, increased resolution to the cellular level, and interpretation of observations. How much deeper can we go and with what resolution and reproducibility? These are fundamental questions for experts in search of novel imaging modalities. New discoveries may resolve existing controversies, but inevitably stimulate new questions. Emerging technologies in retinal imaging include adaptive optics retinal imaging and optical coherence tomography-based retinal angiography. In this review, the focus of our discussion will be the discrepancy between the findings (interpretation) of one imaging technology that do not agree or are not even found with a complementary technology. If a clearly seen abnormality is present with one technology but absent in another, what are the possible explanations? Following is a summary of key concepts of retinal and optic nerve imaging modalities and current controversies regarding their interpretation and/or limitations.
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.