Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32671295›Full record

ReviewJournal of current ophthalmology

Artifacts in Macular Optical Coherence Tomography.

Fatemeh Bazvand, Fariba Ghassemi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of current ophthalmology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Intraoperative fusion of models and data for robust distance sensing.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Optical coherence tomography angiography in diabetic retinopathy.Progress in retinal and eye research · 2023
    Review
  10. Influence of mydriasis on foveal duplication artifact.SAGE open medical case reports · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Looking Ahead: Visual and Anatomical Endpoints in Future Trials of Diabetic Macular Ischemia.Ophthalmologica. Journal international d'ophtalmologie. International journal of ophthalmology. Zeitschrift fur Augenheilkunde · 2021
    Review
  14. Artifacts in Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography.Journal of ophthalmic & vision research
    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

2 authors.

Fatemeh BazvandEye Research Center, Farabi Eye Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Fariba GhassemiEye Research Center, Farabi Eye Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo identify and explain different artifacts in macular optical coherence tomography (OCT).

methodsFor this comprehensive review, a PubMed and Google Scholar (January 1995-October 2018) search was conducted by the researchers, using the keywords such as OCT, artifacts, artefact, and macula.

resultsWe reviewed the main OCT artifacts including software break-down or misidentification of retinal layers, incomplete segmentation error, complete segmentation failure, mirror artifact (inverted artifact), cut edge artifact, degraded image scan, out-of-register artifact, off-center artifact, motion artifact, foveal duplication, segmentation shift, blink artifact, static or fixed image artifact, linear artifact, and perfluorocarbon liquid-producing artifact.

conclusionsThere are various artifacts in OCT image scans. The identification of these artifacts may help in accurate interpretations of OCT images in clinical settings that can affect the diagnosis and management of different retinal disorders.

Indexed as

ArtefactArtifactsMaculaOptical coherence tomography

Identifiers

PMID32671295
PMCPMC7337029

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.