Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30619651›Full record

ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2018

Reproducibility of Macular Vessel Density Calculations Via Imaging With Two Different Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography Systems.

Takuhei Shoji, Yuji Yoshikawa, Junji Kanno, Hirokazu Ishii, Hisashi Ibuki, Kimitake Ozaki, Itaru Kimura, Kei Shinoda

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 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
–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

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. A normative database of wide-field swept-source optical coherence tomography angiography quantitative metrics in a large cohort of healthy adults.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2023
    Observational
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

8 authors.

Takuhei ShojiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Saitama Medical University, Saitama, Japan.
Yuji YoshikawaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Saitama Medical University, Saitama, Japan.
Junji KannoDepartment of Ophthalmology, Saitama Medical University, Saitama, Japan.
Hirokazu IshiiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Saitama Medical University, Saitama, Japan.
Hisashi IbukiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Saitama Medical University, Saitama, Japan.
Kimitake OzakiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Saitama Medical University, Saitama, Japan.
Itaru KimuraDepartment of Ophthalmology, Saitama Medical University, Saitama, Japan.
Kei ShinodaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Saitama Medical University, Saitama, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the reproducibility of vessel density calculations using different binarization methods obtained via two commercially available swept-source optical coherence tomography angiography (SS-OCTA) systems.

methodsHealthy volunteers were imaged using two swept-source optical coherence tomography angiography (SS-OCTA) devices, PLEXElite and Triton. SS-OCTA examinations were performed using a 3 × 3-mm volume scan pattern centered on the fovea. A total of six methods were used for binarization in ImageJ, two global thresholding and four local adaptive thresholding methods. Resultant vessel density values were compared between the instruments and binarization methods. Images for 60 eyes from 30 healthy subjects were assessed by two reviewers who were blinded to the scanning system used.

resultsTwenty-two eyes were excluded due to poor image quality (17 eyes from Triton, 4 eyes from PLEXElite, and 1 eye from both instruments,

conclusionsMacular scans with both SS-OCTA instruments showed good reproducibility for vessel density measurements. PLEXElite recorded fewer poor images and had higher reproducibility than did Triton. These findings will inform the selection of proper binarization methods for the clinical detection of vascular diseases affecting the central retina. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: The reproducibility for macular vessel measurements with SS-OCTA instruments was good. PLEXElite recorded fewer poor images and had higher reproducibility than did Triton.

Indexed as

OCT angiographyreproducibilitysuperficial capillary plexusvessel density

Identifiers

PMID30619651
PMCPMC6314059

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.