ArticleScientific reports2022
Evaluation of different OCT systems in quantitative imaging of human Schlemm's canal.
Article in Scientific reports, 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Molecular and Biomechanical Changes in the Anterior Segment of High Myopic Eyes.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Review
- Comparison of macular retinal thickness measurements using spectral-domain and swept-source optical coherence tomography in healthy eyes.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Anterior Scleral Thickness and Anterior Segment Biometrics Measured with Swept Source Ocular Coherence Tomography in High Myopic Eyes with and without Glaucoma: A Comparative Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Effect of digital ocular massage on intraocular pressure and Schlemm's canal dimensions.Scientific reports · 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
11 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
We examined the performance of human Schlemm's canal (SC) imaging using different OCT devices: CIRRUS 5000 (840 nm, spectral-domain (SD)-OCT), PLEX Elite 9000 (1060 nm, swept-source (SS)-OCT) and CASIA SS-1000 (1310 nm, SS-OCT), and analyzed potential impact factors on visualization and the quantitative assessment of SC morphology in a pilot study. Ten healthy subjects were imaged using three OCT devices by a single experienced operator on the same day. Each eye underwent two cubic scans by each device, one on nasal and the other on temporal quadrant. The B-scan showing the largest SC was manually selected for processing. Four quantitative metrics, including one morphological metric as cross-sectional area (CSA), and three performance metrics as contrast, continuity, and coverage, were derived from the datasets. Repeated-measures ANOVA was used to investigate the difference between these parameters from the three devices (P < 0.05). We found the CSA measured from CIRRUS was significantly larger than PLEX, followed by CASIA. The contrast was highest in CIRRUS, followed by PLEX and CASIA. The coverage was also higher in CIRRUS as compared to PLEX and CASIA. No significant difference was seen in the continuity from the three devices. In summary, we showed the measurements from the three devices were not interchangeable.
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.