ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2020
Diagnostic performance of OCT and OCTA in less than 60-year-old patients with early POAG: a cross-sectional study.
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Degree of loss in the tissue thickness, microvascular density, specific perimetry and standard perimetry in early glaucoma.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2023Trial
- Repeatability, interocular correlation and agreement of optic nerve head vessel density in healthy eyes: a swept-source optical coherence tomographic angiography study.International journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
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
aimTo observe and characterize imaging features of macular and optic disc areas in less than 60-year-old patients with early primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) by optical coherence tomography (OCT) and optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA), and to evaluate the diagnostic value of OCT and OCTA.
methodsTotally 15 patients (23 eyes) with early POAG as observation group and 30 health people (30 eyes) as normal control group were enrolled in this cross-sectional study. OCTA-based superficial macula vessel density, superficial macula perfusion density, superficial optic disc vessel density, superficial optic disc perfusion density and spectral domain OCT (SD-OCT)-based macular area thickness, ganglion cell complex (GCC) thickness and retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness were measured in the two groups. Independent
resultsAmong all the parameters, the optimal diagnostic utility parameter was the superficial vessel density in the macular area (except the center of the macula), and the AUROC reached 0.98. The diagnostic utility of macular area perfusion density (except the center of the macula) was similar to that of superficial vessel density in the macular area, and the AUROC was above 0.97. Followed by the diagnostic utility of vessel density in the optic disc area, the best parameter was the inner ring of the vessel density, and its AUROC reached 0.97. The diagnostic utility of perfusion density in the optic disc area was slightly lower than that of vessel density in the optic disc area. The best parameter was the central optic disc perfusion density, and its AUROC was 0.95. The SD-OCT-based diagnostic utility parameters were generally lower than that mentioned above, the top three parameters were the inferior RNFL thickness (AUROC=0.919), the superior (AUROC=0.919) and the inferior GCC thickness (AUROC=0.9077).
conclusionThe OCT-based diagnostic utility parameters are generally lower than the OCTA-based diagnostic utility parameters. OCTA has an important clinical application value in diagnosis and evaluation for less than 60-year-old patients with early POAG.
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.