ReviewDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2017
[Pitfalls in retinal optical coherence tomography imaging].
Review in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Optical coherence tomography biomarkers for neovascular age-related macular degeneration : Relevance for diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis.Die Ophthalmologie · 2026Review
- [Optical coherence tomography biomarkers for neovascular age-related macular degeneration : Relevance for the diagnosis, treatment and prognosis].Die Ophthalmologie · 2025Review
- [Avoiding mistakes in anti-VEGF intravitreal injection therapy].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2022Article
- [Second opinion in retinal imaging].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2020Review
- [Baseline diagnostics and initial treatment decision for anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment in retinal diseases : Comparison between results by study physician and reading centers (ORCA/OCEAN study)].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2019Article
- [Quality assurance of optical coherence tomography for diagnostics of the fundus : Positional statement of the BVA, DOG and RG].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2017Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging now plays an important role in the management of macular and retinal diseases. In addition to the many advantages of this noninvasive imaging modality, limitations and pitfalls should be taken into consideration. The aim of this review is to discuss several possible sources of error in the conduct and interpretation of OCT imaging. Ultimately, this article should add to a meaningful and focused use in clinical practice.
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.