Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28235055›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Lipofuscin-associated photo-oxidative stress during fundus autofluorescence imaging.

Michel M Teussink, Stanley Lambertus, Frits F de Mul, Malgorzata B Rozanowska, Carel B Hoyng, B Jeroen Klevering, Thomas Theelen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Fundus autofluorescence imaging.Progress in retinal and eye research · 2021
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Comparison of Green Versus Blue Fundus Autofluorescence inTranslational vision science & technology · 2018
    Article
  13. Fluorescence lifetime imaging ophthalmoscopy.Progress in retinal and eye research · 2017
    Review
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Michel M TeussinkDepartment of Ophthalmology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Stanley LambertusDepartment of Ophthalmology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Frits F de MulDepartment of Applied Physics, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands.
Malgorzata B RozanowskaSchool of Optometry and Vision Sciences, Cardiff University, Wales, United Kingdom.
Carel B HoyngDepartment of Ophthalmology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
B Jeroen KleveringDepartment of Ophthalmology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Thomas TheelenDepartment of Ophthalmology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLCardiff University · GBRadboud University Medical Center · NLUniversity of Twente · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCurrent standards and guidelines aimed at preventing retinal phototoxicity during intentional exposures do not specifically evaluate the contribution of endogenous photosensitizers. However, certain retinal diseases are characterized by abnormal accumulations of potential photosensitizers such as lipofuscin bisretinoids in the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE). We sought to determine these contributions by a numerical assessment of in-vivo photo-oxidative stress during irradiation of RPE lipofuscin.

methodsBased on the literature, we calculated the retinal exposure levels, optical filtering of incident radiation by the ocular lens, media, photoreceptors, and RPE melanin, light absorption by lipofuscin, and photochemical effects in the RPE in two situations: exposure to short-wavelength (λ = 488 nm) fundus autofluorescence (SW-AF) excitation light and exposure to indirect (diffuse) sunlight.

resultsIn healthy persons at age 20, 40, and 60, respectively, the rate of oxygen photoconsumption by lipofuscin increases by 1.3, 1.7, and 2.4 fold during SW-AF-imaging as compared to diffuse sunlight. In patients with STGD1 below the age of 30, this rate was 3.3-fold higher compared to age-matched controls during either sunlight or SW-AF imaging.

conclusionsOur results suggest that the RPE of patients with STGD1 is generally at increased risk of photo-oxidative stress, while exposure during SW-AF-imaging amplifies this risk. These theoretical results have not yet been verified with in-vivo data due to a lack of sufficiently sensitive in-vivo measurement techniques.

Indexed as

AdultFemaleFluorescein AngiographyFundus OculiHumansLipofuscinMacular DegenerationMaleMelaninsMiddle AgedOptical ImagingOxidative StressPhotochemical ProcessesPhotoreceptor Cells, VertebratePhotosensitizing AgentsRetinal Pigment EpitheliumLipofuscinMelaninsPhotosensitizing Agents

Identifiers

PMID28235055
PMCPMC5325292
OpenAlexW2589666977

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.