Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28983552›Full record

Observational studyJAMA ophthalmology2017

Choriocapillaris Imaging Using Multiple En Face Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography Image Averaging.

Akihito Uji, Siva Balasubramanian, Jianqin Lei, Elmira Baghdasaryan, Mayss Al-Sheikh, SriniVas R Sadda

Open access · bronzeAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in JAMA ophthalmology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 95 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
95citing papers in PubMed
11.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

95 citing papers in PubMed, 154 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Quantification of Normative Human Choriocapillaris Measures Across the Macula.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Choriocapillaris in Age-Related Macular Degeneration.Turkish journal of ophthalmology · 2024
    Review
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

35 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Akihito UjiDoheny Image Reading Center, Doheny Eye Institute, Los Angeles, California.
Siva BalasubramanianDoheny Image Reading Center, Doheny Eye Institute, Los Angeles, California.
Jianqin LeiDoheny Image Reading Center, Doheny Eye Institute, Los Angeles, California.
Elmira BaghdasaryanDoheny Image Reading Center, Doheny Eye Institute, Los Angeles, California.
Mayss Al-SheikhDoheny Image Reading Center, Doheny Eye Institute, Los Angeles, California.
SriniVas R SaddaDoheny Image Reading Center, Doheny Eye Institute, Los Angeles, California.
University of California, Los Angeles · USDoheny Eye Institute · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Imaging of the choriocapillaris in vivo is challenging with existing technology. Optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA), if optimized, could make the imaging less challenging. Objective: To investigate multiple en face image averaging on OCTA images of the choriocapillaris. Design, Setting, and Participants: Observational, cross-sectional case series at a referral institutional practice in Los Angeles, California. From the original cohort of 21 healthy individuals, 17 normal eyes of 17 participants were included in the study. The study dates were August to September 2016. Exposures: All participants underwent OCTA imaging of the macula covering a 3 × 3-mm area using OCTA software (Cirrus 5000 with AngioPlex; Carl Zeiss Meditec). One eye per participant was repeatedly imaged to obtain 9 OCTA cube scan sets. Registration was first performed using superficial capillary plexus images, and this transformation was then applied to the choriocapillaris images. The 9 registered choriocapillaris images were then averaged. Quantitative parameters were measured on binarized OCTA images and compared with the unaveraged OCTA images. Main Outcome and Measure: Vessel caliber measurement. Results: Seventeen eyes of 17 participants (mean [SD] age, 35.1 [6.0] years; 9 [53%] female; and 9 [53%] of white race/ethnicity) with sufficient image quality were included in this analysis. The single unaveraged images demonstrated a granular appearance, and the vascular pattern was difficult to discern. After averaging, en face choriocapillaris images showed a meshwork appearance. The mean (SD) diameter of the vessels was 22.8 (5.8) µm (range, 9.6-40.2 µm). Compared with the single unaveraged images, the averaged images showed more flow voids (1423 flow voids [95% CI, 967-1909] vs 1254 flow voids [95% CI, 825-1683], P < .001), smaller average size of the flow voids (911 [95% CI, 301-1521] µm2 vs 1364 [95% CI, 645-2083] µm2, P < .001), and greater vessel density (70.7% [95% CI, 61.9%-79.5%] vs 61.9% [95% CI, 56.0%-67.8%], P < .001). The distribution of the number vs sizes of the flow voids was skewed in both unaveraged and averaged images. A linear log-log plot of the distribution showed a more homogeneous distribution in the averaged images compared with the unaveraged images. Conclusions and Relevance: Multiple en face averaging can improve visualization of the choriocapillaris on OCTA images, transforming the images from a granular appearance to a level where the intervascular spaces can be resolved in healthy volunteers.

Indexed as

AdultCapillariesChoroidCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleFluorescein AngiographyFollow-Up StudiesFundus OculiHealthy VolunteersHumansMacula LuteaMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsRetinal VesselsRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID28983552
PMCPMC5710392
OpenAlexW2764246834

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.