Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30335839›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Repeatability, reproducibility and agreement of foveal avascular zone measurements using three different optical coherence tomography angiography devices.

Natasa Mihailovic, Cristin Brand, Larissa Lahme, Friederike Schubert, Eike Bormann, Nicole Eter, Maged Alnawaiseh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Retinal microvascular density analysis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with hydroxychloroquine.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2023
    Article
  20. Diabetic macular ischaemia- a new therapeutic target?Progress in retinal and eye research · 2022
    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.

Natasa MihailovicDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Muenster Medical Center, Muenster, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6747-4751
Cristin BrandInstitute of Reproductive and Regenerative Biology, Center of Reproductive Medicine and Andrology, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
Larissa LahmeDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Muenster Medical Center, Muenster, Germany.
Friederike SchubertDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Muenster Medical Center, Muenster, Germany.
Eike BormannInstitute of Biostatistics and Clinical Research, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany, Muenster, Germany.
Nicole EterDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Muenster Medical Center, Muenster, Germany.
Maged AlnawaisehDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Muenster Medical Center, Muenster, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the repeatability, the reproducibility and the agreement of foveal avascular zone (FAZ) measurements using three different optical coherence tomography angiography (OCT-A) devices. PROCEDURES: This prospective study included 24 eyes of 24 healthy volunteers. OCT-A imaging was performed using RTVue XR Avanti, Canon OCT-HS100 and Spectralis OCT-A. Repeated measurements were performed under the same conditions on two separate days, and the area of the FAZ was determined and analyzed using the above devices.

resultsAll three devices showed a high ICC and there was no significant difference between the ICCs (pairwise comparison) of the three devices (Optovue-Canon (p = 0.66); Canon-Heidelberg (p = 0.21); Heidelberg-Optovue (p = 0.37). Agreement analysis of the three devices revealed a significant elevation of FAZ area values with the Heidelberg device and a slight underestimation of the FAZ area with the Canon device. Nevertheless, overall we found a high level of agreement between all of the three devices (ICC ≥ 0.958 (0.905-0.982)).

conclusionsGood reproducibility and repeatability were observed for all three devices. However, the agreement analysis revealed slight, but significant differences, which might limit alternating use of these devices for clinical research and follow-up examinations.

Indexed as

Fluorescein AngiographyTomography, Optical CoherenceAdultFemaleFovea CentralisHumansMaleObserver VariationRegression AnalysisReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID30335839
PMCPMC6193722

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.