ArticleScientific reports2019
Comparison of optical coherence tomography and high frequency ultrasound imaging in mice for the assessment of skin morphology and intradermal volumes.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- High-frequency ultrasound accuracy in preoperative cutaneous melanoma assessment: A meta-analysis.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2025Pooled it
- Comparative ESEM Characterization and Collagen-Related Tissue Responses to Commercial Injectable Bioregenerative Formulations in a Murine Model.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound in Dermatology: A Review with Emphasis on Skin Cancer Management and Prevention.Cancers · 2025Review
- OCT in Oncology and Precision Medicine: From Nanoparticles to Advanced Technologies and AI.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Slit lamp polarized dermoscopy: a cost-effective tool to assess eyelid lesions.International ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Automated Classification and Detection of Staphyloma with Ultrasound Images in Pathologic Myopia Eyes.Ultrasound in medicine & biology · 2022Article
- Application of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the diagnosis of burn depth.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
- Thermal Ablation and High-Resolution Imaging Using a Back-to-Back (BTB) Dual-Mode Ultrasonic Transducer: In Vivo Results.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Cutaneous optical coherence tomography for longitudinal volumetric assessment of intradermal volumes in a mouse model.Scientific reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Optical coherence tomography (OCT) and high-frequency ultrasound (HFUS), two established imaging modalities in the field of dermatology, were evaluated and compared regarding their applicability for visualization of skin tissue morphology and quantification of murine intradermal structures. The accuracy and reproducibility of both methods were assessed ex vivo and in vivo using a standardized model for intradermal volumes based on injected soft tissue fillers. OCT revealed greater detail in skin morphology, allowing for detection of single layers due to the superior resolution. Volumetric data measured by OCT (7.9 ± 0.3 μl) and HFUS (7.7 ± 0.5 μl) were in good agreement and revealed a high accuracy when compared to the injected volume of 7.98 ± 0.8 µl. In vivo, OCT provided a higher precision (relative SD: 26% OCT vs. 42% HFUS) for the quantification of intradermal structures, whereas HFUS offered increased penetration depth enabling the visualization of deeper structures. A combination of both imaging technologies might be valuable for tumor assessments or other dermal pathologies in clinical settings.
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.