ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2022
Multi-Center Repeatability of Macular Capillary Perfusion Density Using Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Choriocapillaris Perfusion after 8 Weeks of High-Speed Circuit Training in Older Healthy Adults.Current eye research · 2024Trial
- Detailed Analysis of Intraretinal Layers and Their Correlation to Brain Structures in Normal Healthy Aging.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- Associations Between Retinal Microvasculature, Orbital Blood Flow, and Cerebral Blood Flow in Healthy Adults.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- Optical coherence tomography retinal imaging: narrative review of technological advancements and clinical applications.Annals of translational medicine · 2025Review
- Repeatability of Fractal Analysis in OCT Angiography of the Macula and Optic Nerve Head.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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background/Aims: This study was to determine the test-retest repeatability in quantifying macular capillary perfusion density (CPD, expressed as fractal dimension) using optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) in a multi-center setting. Methods: OCTA data were obtained in self-reported healthy subjects from Bascom Palmer Eye Institute at the University of Miami (UM, N = 18) and the University of Pennsylvania (UPenn, N = 22). The right eye of each subject was imaged twice at the first visit and then again at an interval of one week to assess intra-visit and inter-visit repeatability. The macular area of the OCTA-derived capillary perfusion density (OCTA-CPD) was analyzed by custom-made image processing and fractal analysis software. Fractal analysis was performed on the skeletonized microvascular network to yield OCTA-CPD by box-counting to the fractal dimension (Dbox) in the superficial vascular plexus (SVP). Repeatability was assessed by three measures: within-subject standard deviation (Sw), coefficient of variation (CoV) of repeated measures, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: OCTA-CPD from both sites (UM and UPENN) showed good to excellent intra-visit repeatability, as demonstrated by the Sw ≤0.004, CoVs ≤0.23%, and ICCs ≥0.61. Similarly, both sites had good to excellent inter-visit repeatability, as shown by the Sw ≤0.005, CoVs ≤0.28%, and ICCs ≥0.61. The Bland-Altman plots of the intra-visit and inter-visit measurements showed excellent agreements between the paired measurements with minimal biases. Conclusion: Our data showed that comparable high repeatability of OCTA-CPD can be achieved in both research sites using the same device, scan protocol, and image analysis.
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.