Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31804666›Full record

ArticleJAMA ophthalmology2020

Prevalence and Severity of Artifacts in Optical Coherence Tomographic Angiograms.

Ian C Holmen, Sri Meghana Konda, Jeong W Pak, Kyle W McDaniel, Barbara Blodi, Kimberly E Stepien, Amitha Domalpally

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 66 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

66 citing papers in PubMed, 102 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  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. Article
  20. Article

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ian C HolmenFundus Photograph Reading Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison.
Sri Meghana KondaFundus Photograph Reading Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison.
Jeong W PakFundus Photograph Reading Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison.
Kyle W McDanielFundus Photograph Reading Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison.
Barbara BlodiFundus Photograph Reading Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison.
Kimberly E StepienFundus Photograph Reading Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison.
Amitha DomalpallyFundus Photograph Reading Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison.
University of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Artifacts can affect optical coherence tomographic angiography (OCTA) images and may be associated with misinterpretation of OCT scans in both clinical trials and clinical settings. Objectives: To identify the prevalence and type of artifacts in OCTA images associated with quantitative output and to analyze the role of proprietary quality indices in establishing image reliability. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study evaluated baseline OCTA images acquired in multicenter clinical trials and submitted to the Fundus Photograph Reading Center in Madison, Wisconsin, between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. Images were captured using the 3 mm × 3 mm and/or 6 mm × 6 mm scan protocol with commercially available OCTA systems. Artifacts, including decentration, segmentation error, movement, blink, refraction shift, defocus, shadow, Z offset, tilt, and projection, were given a severity grade based on involvement of cross-sectional OCT and area of OCT grid affected. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prevalence and severity of OCTA artifacts and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of quality indices with image reliability. Results: A total of 406 OCTA images from 234 eyes were included in this study, of which 221 (54.4%) were 6 mm × 6 mm scans and 185 (45.6%) were 3 mm × 3 mm scans. At least 1 artifact was documented in 395 images (97.3%). Severe artifacts associated with the reliability of quantitative outputs were found in 217 images (53.5%). Shadow (26.9% [109 images]), defocus (20.9% [85 images]), and movement (16.0% [65 images]) were the 3 most prevalent artifacts. Prevalence of artifacts did not vary with the imaging system used or with the scan protocol; however, the type of artifacts varied. Commercially recommended quality index thresholds had an AUC of 0.80 to 0.83, sensitivity of 97% to 99%, and specificity of 37% to 41% for reliable images. Conclusions and Relevance: Findings from this study suggest that artifacts associated with quantitative outputs on commercially available OCTA devices are highly prevalent and that identifying common artifacts may require correlation with the angiogram and cross-sectional OCT scans. Knowledge of these artifacts and their implications for OCTA indices appears to be warranted for more accurate interpretation of OCTA images.

Indexed as

Fluorescein AngiographyTomography, Optical CoherenceArtifactsCross-Sectional StudiesHumansPrevalence

Identifiers

PMID31804666
PMCPMC6902206
OpenAlexW2992783718

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.