Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32902576›Full record

ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2020

Choriocapillaris Flow Deficits and Treatment-Naïve Macular Neovascularization Secondary to Age-Related Macular Degeneration.

Jackson M Scharf, Giulia Corradetti, Ahmed Roshdy Alagorie, Christelle Grondin, Assaf Hilely, Derrick Wang, SriniVas Sadda, David Sarraf

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The Impact of Diabetic Retinopathy on the Choriocapillaris in Neovascular AMD.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Dark halo, a new biomarker in macular neovascularization: comparison between OCT angiography and ICGA-a pilot prospective study.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Jackson M ScharfRetina Disorders and Ophthalmic Genetics, Stein Eye Institute, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States.
Giulia CorradettiRetina Disorders and Ophthalmic Genetics, Stein Eye Institute, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States.
Ahmed Roshdy AlagorieDoheny Image Reading Center, Doheny Eye Institute, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Affiliated, Los Angeles, California, United States.
Christelle GrondinRetina Disorders and Ophthalmic Genetics, Stein Eye Institute, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States.
Assaf HilelyRetina Disorders and Ophthalmic Genetics, Stein Eye Institute, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States.
Derrick WangRetina Disorders and Ophthalmic Genetics, Stein Eye Institute, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States.
SriniVas SaddaDoheny Image Reading Center, Doheny Eye Institute, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Affiliated, Los Angeles, California, United States.
David SarrafRetina Disorders and Ophthalmic Genetics, Stein Eye Institute, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States.
University of California, Los Angeles · USTanta University · EGTel Aviv University · ILVA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate choriocapillaris (CC) flow deficits (FD) in eyes with treatment-naïve macular neovascularization (MNV) and to compare CC FD around exudative versus nonexudative MNV. Methods: Treatment-naïve eyes with a diagnosis of either exudative or nonexudative AMD and type 1 MNV were included. Normal control eyes were age-matched to each AMD eye one to one. En face optical coherence tomography angiograms were analyzed for percentage of CC FD (FD%) in two concentric 500 µm rings, ring 1 and ring 2, surrounding the dark halo around MNV. The mean CC FD% in ring 1 and ring 2 was evaluated for each eye. A secondary analysis was similarly carried out to investigate the differences in CC FD% in exudative versus nonexudative treatment-naïve MNV. Results: Twenty-three eyes with treatment-naïve MNV were age matched with 23 normal controls. The mean CC FD% was significantly greater in both rings in the MNV versus the normal control group (P < 0.05) and was significantly greater in the inner ring, closer to the lesion, than the outer ring. The mean FD% was also greater in both rings in the exudative versus the nonexudative MNV group, but this difference did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: The CC FD% was greater in the area surrounding MNV versus age-matched normal controls and in the ring closer to the MNV lesion. Further, CC FD was greater in eyes with exudative versus nonexudative MNV in both rings surrounding the associated dark halo, although this difference was not statistically significant.

Indexed as

AgedChoroidCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleFluorescein AngiographyFollow-Up StudiesFundus OculiHumansMacular DegenerationMaleRegional Blood FlowRetinal NeovascularizationRetinal VesselsRetrospective StudiesTomography, Optical Coherence

Identifiers

PMID32902576
PMCPMC7488611
OpenAlexW3084131940

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.