ArticleExperimental eye research2021
Retinal safety evaluation of photoacoustic microscopy.
Article in Experimental eye research, 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biomechanical Relationships Between the Aqueous Veins and Perilimbal Sclera During Intraocular Pressure Regulation.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Establishment of a novel alloxan-induced rabbit model exhibiting unique diabetic retinal neuropathy features assessed via ERG + VEP.Animal models and experimental medicine · 2025Article
- Multimodal Imaging-Guided Stem Cell Ocular Treatment.ACS nano · 2024Article
- Molecular and cellular imaging of the eye.Biomedical optics express · 2024Review
- Advanced nanomaterials for imaging of eye diseases.ADMET & DMPK · 2024Review
- 3D imaging of aqueous veins and surrounding sclera using a dual-wavelength photoacoustic microscopy.Biomedical optics express · 2023Article
- Safety Evaluation of Photoacoustic Tomography System for Intraocular Tumors.Translational vision science & technology · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Photoacoustic microscopy (PAM) has significant potential as a promising diagnostic method for eye diseases and can provide anatomic and functional information of the retinal and choroidal vasculature. However, there are no FDA-approved PAM systems for ophthalmic imaging. In this study, a comprehensive safety evaluation was performed to evaluate the safety of PAM retinal imaging and whether PAM causes damage to retinal structure or function in rabbit eyes. 12 Dutch-Belted pigmented rabbits received photoacoustic imaging to 57% of the retinal surface area with a laser energy of 5% of the ANSI safety limit for five consecutive days and followed before imaging and 3 days, 1, 2, 3, and 4 weeks post imaging. Retinal morphologic analyses using slit lamp examination, fundus photography, red free, FA, FAF, ICGA, and OCT showed no retinal hemorrhage, edema, detachment, vascular abnormalities, or pigmentary abnormalities in the retina or choroid after PAM imaging. Full-field ERG analysis showed no significant difference in scotopic or photopic a- and b-wave amplitudes or implicit times between the control and experimental eyes over time (n = 6, P values > 0.05). Retinal ultrastructural evaluation using TEM showed normal structure of organelles and nuclei, and no significant loss of cells after PAM. TUNEL assay showed no evidence of cells apoptosis in retina. Retinal histopathology indicated that the architecture and thickness of the retinal layers was well preserved in all experimental eyes. A positive control at 500% of the ANSI limit demonstrated significant damage. The comprehensive retinal safety evaluation demonstrated no damage to retinal structure or function for 4 weeks after PAM imaging in rabbits.
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.