ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2022
Assessment of Artifacts in Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography for Glaucomatous and Normal Eyes.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Extravascular Motion Signal Detected by OCT Angiography Indicates Altered Vascular-Tissue Biomechanical Interactions in Glaucoma.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2026Article
- The AROMA Dataset for Automatic Detection of Artifact Type and Severity in Retinal Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography.Ophthalmic research · 2026Article
- Peripheral Ganglion Cell Complex Thickness and Retinal Microvasculature in Myopia Using Wide-Field Swept-Source OCT.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- Ocular Factors of Fractal Dimension and Blood Vessel Tortuosity Derived From OCTA in a Healthy Chinese Population.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
13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the frequency of and identify the factors that influence the artifacts of swept-source optical coherence tomography angiography (SS-OCTA) in glaucomatous and normal eyes. Methods: Artifacts of OCTA images of open-angle glaucoma (OAG) and normal subjects were analyzed using SS-OCTA. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association of age, sex, best-corrected visual acuity, axial length (AL), intraocular pressure, presence and severity of OAG, and image quality score (IQS) with the presence of artifacts. Results: Images from 4426 subjects were included in the study. At least one type of artifact was present in 24.54% of the images. The most common artifacts were occurrence of motion (705 eyes, 15.93%), followed by defocus (628 eyes, 14.19%), decentration (134 eyes, 3.03%), masking (62 eyes,1.40%), and segmentation errors (23 eyes, 0.52%). Multivariate logistic analyses showed that the presence of OAG (odds ratio [OR] = 2.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.09-3.51; P < 0.001), female sex (OR = 1.34; 95% CI, 1.12-1.61; P = 0.001), longer AL (OR = 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.17; P = 0.017), and IQS < 40 (OR = 3.75; 95% CI, 3.15-4.48; P < 0.001) were significantly associated with higher odds for the presence of any artifact. The IQS had poor performance for detecting artifacts, with an area under the curve of 0.723, sensitivity of 73.04%, and specificity of 62.53%. Conclusions: OAG eyes had more SS-OCTA image artifacts than normal eyes. IQS is an imperfect tool for identifying artifacts. Translational Relevance: Special attention should be paid to the effect of artifacts when using SS-OCTA in the clinical setting to assess vascular parameters in patients with glaucoma.
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.