Trial reportTranslational vision science & technology2022
Interobserver Agreement of Electrode to Retina Distance Measurements in a Second-Generation (44-Channel) Suprachoroidal Retinal Prosthesis.
Trial report in Translational vision science & technology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03406416 (Evaluation of a Suprachoroidal Retinal Prosthesis), which is not on this 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.
Evaluation of a Suprachoroidal Retinal Prosthesis: A 44 Channel Fully Implantable Study
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Second-Generation (44-Channel) Suprachoroidal Retinal Prosthesis: Surgical Stability and Safety During a 2-Year Clinical Trial.Clinical & experimental ophthalmology · 2025Trial
- Face and Available Chair Detection and Localization With a Second-Generation (44-Channel) Suprachoroidal Retinal Prosthesis.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Observational
- Retinal Prostheses: Engineering and Clinical Perspectives for Vision Restoration.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- A Second-Generation (44-Channel) Suprachoroidal Retinal Prosthesis: A Single-Arm Clinical Trial of Feasibility.Ophthalmology scienceArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The electrode to retina (ER) distance is an important contributory factor to the safety and efficacy of a suprachoroidal retinal prosthesis. Measuring ER distance may be performed by different observers during multisite studies. The aim of this study was to assess the interobserver agreement in measuring ER distance. Methods: Three independent, trained observers measured ER distance from the center of each suprachoroidal electrode to the inner retinal pigment epithelium in spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) B-scans. A total of 121 ER distance measurements from 77 B-scans collected over 5 months from one subject implanted with a second-generation 44-channel suprachoroidal retinal prosthesis (NCT03406416) were made by each observer. Results: ER distance ranged from 208 to 509 µm. Pearson's correlation coefficient (ρ) showed agreement of 0.99 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.98-0.99) in measuring ER for each pairwise comparison. The mean difference in ER distance between observers ranged from 2.4 to 6.4 µm with pairwise limits of agreement (95% CI) of ±20 µm (5.5% of mean). Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) showed agreement of 0.98 (95% CI = 0.97-0.99) between observers. Conclusions: There is high agreement in measuring ER distances for suprachoroidal retinal prostheses using our systematic approach between multiple, trained observers, supporting the use of a single observer for each image. Translational Relevance: High interobserver agreement outcomes indicate that multiple, trained observers can be used to take ER measurements across different images in suprachoroidal retinal prosthesis studies. This improves multisite study efficiency and gives confidence in interpreting results relating to the safety and efficacy of suprachoroidal retinal prostheses.
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.