Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29600120›Full record

ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2018

Towards Standardization of Quantitative Retinal Vascular Parameters: Comparison of SIVA and VAMPIRE Measurements in the Lothian Birth Cohort 1936.

Sarah McGrory, Adele M Taylor, Enrico Pellegrini, Lucia Ballerini, Mirna Kirin, Fergus N Doubal, Joanna M Wardlaw, Alex S F Doney, Baljean Dhillon, John M Starr and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. A New Retest-Stable Tortuosity Metric for Retinal Vessel Analyses.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

13 authors.

Sarah McGroryVAMPIRE project, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Adele M TaylorDepartment of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Enrico PellegriniVAMPIRE project, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Lucia BalleriniVAMPIRE project, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Mirna KirinFaculty of Medicine, University of Split, Split, Croatia.
Fergus N DoubalVAMPIRE project, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Joanna M WardlawVAMPIRE project, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Alex S F DoneyDivision of Cardiovascular and Diabetes Medicine, Medical Research Institute, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, UK.
Baljean DhillonVAMPIRE project, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
John M StarrCentre for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Emanuele TruccoVAMPIRE project, Computing, School of Science and Engineering, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Ian J DearyDepartment of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Thomas J MacGillivrayVAMPIRE project, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HICG/1/39Medical Research Council MC_PC_15027Medical Research Council MR/K026992/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeSemiautomated software applications derive quantitative retinal vascular parameters from fundus camera images. However, the extent of agreement between measurements from different applications is unclear. We evaluate the agreement between retinal measures from two software applications, the Singapore "I" Vessel Assessment (SIVA) and the Vessel Assessment and Measurement Platform for Images of the Retina (VAMPIRE), and examine respective associations between retinal and systemic outcomes.

methodFundus camera images from 665 Lothian Birth Cohort 1936 participants were analyzed with SIVA and VAMPIRE. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots assessed agreement between retinal parameters: measurements of vessel width, fractal dimension, and tortuosity. Retinal-systemic variable associations were assessed with Pearson's correlation, and intersoftware correlation magnitude differences were examined with Williams's test.

resultsICC values indicated poor to limited agreement for all retinal parameters (0.159-0.410). Bland-Altman plots revealed proportional bias in the majority, and systematic bias in all measurements. SIVA and VAMPIRE measurements were associated most consistently with systemic variables relating to blood pressure (SIVA

conclusionsAgreement between two common software applications was poor. Further studies are required to determine whether associations with systemic variables are software-dependent. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: Standardization of the measurement of retinal vascular parameters is warranted to ensure that they are reliable and application-independent. This would be an important step towards realizing the potential of the retina as a source of imaging-derived biomarkers that are clinically useful.

Indexed as

retinaretinal image analysisretinal microvasculature

Identifiers

PMID29600120
PMCPMC5868859

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.