Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35082345›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Evaluation of different OCT systems in quantitative imaging of human Schlemm's canal.

Xuan Wu, Bingyao Tan, Jinyuan Gan, Adeline R Lam, Yibing Chen, Xinyu Liu, Jacqueline Chua, Damon W K Wong, Marcus Ang, Leopold Schmetterer and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Xuan WuSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore, Singapore.
Bingyao TanSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore, Singapore.
Jinyuan GanAcademic Clinical Program, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.
Adeline R LamAcademic Clinical Program, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.
Yibing ChenSchool of Chemical and Biomedical Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.
Xinyu LiuSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore, Singapore.
Jacqueline ChuaSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore, Singapore.
Damon W K WongSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore, Singapore.
Marcus AngSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore, Singapore.
Leopold SchmettererSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore, Singapore.
Xinwen YaoSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore, Singapore. xinwen.yao@ntu.edu.sg.
Duke-NUS Medical School · SGNanyang Technological University · SGSingapore Eye Research Institute · SGSingapore National Eye Center · SGMedical University of Vienna · AT

Funding

Duke-NUS Medical School Duke-NUS-KP(Coll)/2018/0009ANanyang Technological University SERI-NTU Advanced Ocular Engineering (STANCE) ProgramNational Medical Research Council NMRC/CG/C010A/2017_SERINational Medical Research Council NMRC/OFLCG/004c/2018National Research Foundation Singapore A20H4b0141Singapore Eye Research Institute SERI-NTU Advanced Ocular Engineering (STANCE) Program
6 · The paper itself

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

AdultFemaleGlaucoma, Open-AngleHealthy VolunteersHumansIntraocular PressureLimbus CorneaeMalePilot ProjectsScleraTomography, Optical CoherenceTrabecular Meshwork

Identifiers

PMID35082345
PMCPMC8792050
OpenAlexW4220679990

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.