ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Oral Fluorescein Angiography with Ultra-Wide-Field Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscopy in Pediatric Patients Precis: Oral Fluorescein Angiography in Children.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Orally administered fluorescein angiography for ultra-wide-field imaging: is a safe and effective modality across different age groups and fundus diseases?Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Role of Oral Fluorescein Angiography in Pediatric Ambulatory Clinics.Ophthalmology. Retina · 2024Article
- [Analysis of adverse drug reactions (ADR) in fluorescein angiography (FAG) and indocyanine green angiography (ICGA) and indications before and during the COVID-19 pandemic at a university eye hospital].Die Ophthalmologie · 2023Article
- An Overview of Pediatric Uveitis.Turkish archives of pediatrics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Aims: To investigate the success rate of oral fluorescein angiography (oral FA) in children with ultrawide scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (SLO) system and whether it can provide images of sufficient quality compared with intravenous FA (IVFA). Methods: In this comparative case series study, a series of 40 consecutive pediatric patients of the age of 3−18 with retinal vascular diseases, in whom FA was needed for the diagnosis or treatment, were enrolled in this study. IVFA and oral FA were performed within one week and images were obtained with the SLO system. The image quality was scored blindly and compared based on: (I) visualization of the branch retinal vessel, (II) the foveal avascular zone (FAZ), and (III) clinically important findings, such as the presence of microaneurysms, neovascularization, leakage, or significant nonperfusion. All these were scored using a three-point scale. Results: In preschoolers (three to six years), all 19 children complete oral FA (100%), while only 7 (36.84%) complete IVFA (p < 0.0001). With the SLO system, the branch retinal vessels were well visualized both in oral and IV FA (all images were two scores). The visualization of FAZ was similar between oral and IV FA (p = 0.8972). The clinically important findings were well visualized in both groups (p > 0.9999). The overall image quality was similar between the two groups (p = 0.2500). Conclusion: Oral FA is more acceptable to preschoolers than IVFA owing to the needle-free procedure. With the SLO system, oral FA provided high-quality angiograms similar to IVFA. Oral FA is an effective alternative to IVFA and may be considered the first option for FA in pediatric patients, especially in preschoolers.
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.