ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2022
Regression-Based Strategies to Reduce Refractive Error-Associated Glaucoma Diagnostic Bias When Using OCT and OCT Angiography.
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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of structure-function correlation among IMO visual function analyser and Humphrey field analyser.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Differentiating Multiple Sclerosis and Glaucoma With Sectoral Pattern Analysis of Peripapillary Nerve Fiber Layer.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- Sector-Based Regression Strategies to Reduce Refractive Error-Associated Glaucoma Diagnostic Bias When Using OCT and OCT Angiography.Translational vision science & technology · 2023Article
- Individualized Estimation of Baseline Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness Using Conditional Variational Autoencoder.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
16 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to correct refractive error-associated bias in optical coherence tomography (OCT) and OCT angiography (OCTA) glaucoma diagnostic parameters. Methods: OCT and OCTA imaging were obtained from participants in the Hong Kong FAMILY cohort. The Avanti/AngioVue OCT/OCTA system was used to measure the peripapillary nerve fiber layer thickness (NFLT), peripapillary nerve fiber layer plexus capillary density (NFLP-CD), macular ganglion cell complex thickness (GCCT), and macular superficial vascular complex vascular density (SVC-VD). Healthy eyes, including ones with axial ametropia, were enrolled for analysis. Results: A total of 1346 eyes from 792 participants were divided into 4 subgroups: high myopia (<-6D), low myopia (-6D to -1D), emmetropia (-1D to 1D), and hyperopia (>1D). After accounting for age, sex, and signal strength, multivariable regression showed strong dependence in most models for NFLT, GCCT, and NFLP-CD on axial eye length (AL), spherical equivalent (SE) refraction, and apparent optic disc diameter (DD). Optical analysis indicated that AL-related transverse optical magnification variations predominated over anatomic variations and were responsible for these trends. Compared to the emmetropic group, the false positive rates were significantly (Chi-square test P < 0.003) elevated in both myopia groups for NFLT, NFLP-CD, and GCCT. Regression-based adjustment of these diagnostic parameters with AL or SE significantly (McNemar test P < 0.03) reduced the elevated false positive rates. Conclusions: Myopic eyes are biased to have lower NFLT, GCCT, and NFLP-CD measurements. AL- and SE-based adjustments were effective in mitigating this bias. Translational Relevance: Adoption of these adjustments into commercial OCT systems may reduce false positive rates related to refractive error.
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.