ArticleScientific reports2021
Optical coherence tomography angiography and Humphrey field analyser for macular capillary non-perfusion evaluation in branch retinal vein occlusion.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ultrawide-Field Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography-Guided Navigated Laser Therapy of Non-Perfused Areas in Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Treatment for Macular Edema in Eyes with Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion with vs Without Glaucoma - Does Glaucoma Affect Visual Outcome in Eyes with BRVO-ME After antiVEGF Injections?Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We non-invasively evaluated macular non-perfused areas (m-NPAs) of branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) using optical coherence tomography (OCT) angiography and the Humphrey visual field analyser 10-2 programme (HFA 10-2). We enrolled 30 patients (30 eyes) with macular oedema secondary to BRVO. OCT angiography was used to photograph the macula at 6 × 6-mm; sizes of m-NPAs in the superficial capillary plexus (SCP) and deep capillary plexus (DCP) were measured in four areas. For HFA 10-2, we divided the actual measurement threshold of 68 points into four areas and calculated the mean central visual field sensitivity (CVFS). The correlation between the mean m-NPA and mean CVFS (dB) in each area was examined. There was a strong correlation between the m-NPA of each region detected in SCP and DCP, and the mean CVFS of each corresponding area (SCP: r = - 0.83, r = - 0.64, r = - 0.73, and r = - 0.79; DCP: r = - 0.82, r = - 0.71, r = - 0.71, and r = - 0.70), p values were < 0.001 for all. m-NPAs were associated with decreased visual field sensitivity in BRVO. Non-invasive m-NPA evaluation was possible using OCT angiography and HFA 10-2.
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.