ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2019
Performance of Topcon 3D optical coherence tomography-2000 in re-analyzing OCT-1000 raw data.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A three-dimensional multi-modal foundation model for optical coherence tomography.Nature biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- A Spectral-Domain-OCT-Guided One-Year Follow-Up of Newly Diagnosed Pediatric Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension Patients.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Quantitative comparison of mean macular thickness in COVID-19 patients versus healthy individuals using optical coherence tomography.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Retinal Dystrophy Associated With RLBP1 Retinitis Pigmentosa: A Five-Year Prospective Natural History Study.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the accuracy of the Topcon 3D optical coherence tomography (OCT)-2000 built-in algorithm in analyzing OCT data acquired using the Topcon 3D OCT-1000 instrument. Raw data of 3D macular 512×128 scans acquired using the Topcon 3D OCT-1000 instrument were analyzed using the Topcon 3D OCT-2000. The occurrence and severity of segmentation error (SE) were compared between the built-in algorithms of the two instruments. Agreement in retinal thickness measurement between the two systems was evaluated in normal and abnormal eyes. A total of 87 eyes from 87 patients were included. The image quality score evaluated by Topcon OCT-2000 software was lower than that of OCT-1000. No statistically significant difference was identified in the SE rate (77.01 vs. 74.71%; P=0.864) or mean SE score (15.97 vs. 16.30; P=0.763) of the total scan area between the two algorithms. Intraclass correlation coefficient values for retinal thickness were high (0.951-0.995). The mean paired difference in retinal thickness was 3.72-5.77 µm (P<0.05) in normal and 0.61-9.52 µm (P<0.05) in abnormal eyes. No significant difference in retinal segmentation performance was identified between OCT-2000 and OCT-1000 when analyzing OCT-1000 raw data. In conclusion, retinal thickness measurements analyzed by the two OCT algorithms may be used interchangeably in normal eyes. Abnormal eyes required investigations as big differences in retinal thickness measurements may occur due to severe SEs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.