Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34271155›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of pharmaceutics2021

Noninvasive monitoring of suprachoroidal, subretinal, and intravitreal implants using confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope (cSLO) and optical coherence tomography (OCT).

Madhoosudan A Patil, Uday B Kompella

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of pharmaceutics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 52% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Back of the Eye Drug Delivery: Advances, Challenges, and Emerging Opportunities for Transformative Therapies.Journal of ocular pharmacology and therapeutics : the official journal of the Association for Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics · 2025
    Article
  3. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Madhoosudan A PatilDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, United States.
Uday B KompellaDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, United States; Department of Ophthalmology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, United States; Department of Bioengineering, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, United States; Colorado Center for Nanomedicine and Nanosafety, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, United States. Electronic address: uday.kompella@cuanschutz.edu.
University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus · US

Funding

Nonivasive Monitoring of Suprachoroidal DeliveryR21EY029887 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI KOMPELLA, UDAY B · 2019 to 2020
$428k
NEI NIH HHS R21 EY029887
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To address the need for noninvasive monitoring of injectable preformed drug delivery implants in the eye, we developed noninvasive methods to monitor such implants in different locations within the eye. Cylindrical polymeric poly(lactide-co-glycolide) or metal implants were injected into isolated bovine eyes at suprachoroidal, subretinal, and intravitreal locations and imaged noninvasively using the cSLO and OCT modes of a Heidelberg Spectralis HRA + OCT instrument after adjusting for the corneal curvature. Length and diameter of implants were obtained using cSLO images for all three locations, and the volume was calculated. Additionally, implant volume for suprachoroidal and subretinal location was estimated by integrating the cross-sectional bleb area over the implant length in multiple OCT images or using the maximum thickness of the implant based on thickness map along with length in cSLO image. Simultaneous cSLO and OCT imaging identified implants in different regions of the eye. Image-based measurements of implant dimensions mostly correlated well with the values prior to injection using blade micrometer. The accuracy (82-112%) and precision (1-19%) for noninvasive measurement of length was better than the diameter (accuracy 69-130%; precision 3-38%) using cSLO image for both types of implants. The accuracy for the measurement of volume of both types of implants from all three intraocular locations was better with cSLO imaging (42-152%) compared to those obtained using OCT cross-sectional bleb area integration (117-556%) or cSLO and thickness map (32-279%) methods. Suprachoroidal, subretinal, and intravitreal implants can be monitored for length, diameter, and volume using cSLO and OCT imaging. Such measurements may be useful in noninvasively monitoring implant degradation and drug release in the eye.

Indexed as

OphthalmoscopesTomography, Optical CoherenceAnimalsCattleCross-Sectional StudiesLasersImplantIntravitrealNoninvasive monitoringSubretinalSuprachoroidal

Identifiers

PMID34271155
PMCPMC8429194
OpenAlexW3177939890

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.