ArticlePloS one2020
Morphologic analysis of macular neovascularizations by OCT angiography-Technical limitations in the comparison of 3×3mm and 6×6mm images.
Article in PloS one, 2020. 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.
- Linking disease activity with optical coherence tomography angiography in neovascular age related macular degeneration using artificial intelligence.Scientific reports · 2024Trial
- Overview of the Use of Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- The Architecture of Macular Neovascularizations Predicts Treatment Responses to Anti-VEGF Therapy in Neovascular AMD.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to ascertain whether there are relevant differences between the vascular morphology of macular neovascularizations (MNV) in 3×3mm and 6×6mm images, produced by optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA).
methodsMNV of 49 patients were automated quantitative analysed, measuring area, flow, the fractal dimension, average vessel length, vascular density, and average vessel caliber. These parameters were compared between the 3×3mm and the 6×6mm images.
resultsA strong linear association was found between the 3×3mm and the 6×6mm images. While area, flow, and FD of the MNV were very similar, the 3×3mm images showed significantly lower average total vessel length, greater vascular density, and lower average vessel caliber.
conclusionIn quantitative analysis of the morphologic parameters of MNV in 3×3mm and 6×6mm images, the structures are not directly equivalent in the two sizes of scan. The images must be evaluated on an individual basis.
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.