ArticleInternational ophthalmology2021
Foveal structure in nanophthalmos and visual acuity.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multimodal Imaging of Diabetic Retinopathy: Insights from Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography and Adaptive Optics.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Flow and ischemic changes in retina and choroid across diabetic retinopathy spectrum: a SS-OCTA study.Eye (London, England) · 2025Observational
- Idiopathic Macular Hole Area to Foveal Avascular Zone Ratio and Its Effects on Visual Acuity Before and After Surgery.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Optical coherence tomography angiography in diabetic retinopathy.Progress in retinal and eye research · 2023Review
- Novel ophthalmic findings and deep phenotyping in Williams-Beuren syndrome.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Article
- A lightweight deep learning model for automatic segmentation and analysis of ophthalmic images.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the fovea in nanophthalmic eyes using spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) and OCT angiography (OCTA), and to investigate the relationship between the macular microstructure and visual acuity.
methodsThis is a retrospective case series of five nanophthalmic patients. The foveal avascular zone (FAZ) area was measured in superficial and deep vascular layers with OCTA. The thickness of the inner retinal layer (IRL) was measured with SD-OCT. The ratio of the foveal and parafoveal IRL thickness (fIRL/pIRL ratio) was calculated. The relationship between these parameters and visual acuity was then investigated.
resultsEight eyes were identified as nanophthalmic with a mean axial length of 17.19 ± 1.44 mm (range: 15.71 to 19.88 mm). The mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) was 0.12 ± 0.18 (range: - 0.18 to 0.40). OCTA showed that FAZs were either absent or undeveloped in the superficial and deep capillary plexuses. Two patients did not show any visual impairments despite small FAZ and a shallow foveal depression. Although the BCVA was significantly correlated with the deep FAZ size, it did not correlate with the superficial FAZ size, axial length, or fIRL/pIRL ratio. However, the refractive error, axial length, and deep FAZ size were all significantly correlated with the fIRL/pIRL ratio.
conclusionsThe FAZs were commonly found to be small in the superficial and deep capillary plexuses. Although the deep FAZ size correlated with visual acuity, it is unclear whether the retinal microstructure and the FAZ size are responsible for the visual impairments observed in the same individuals.
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.