ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2022
Comparison of Multimodal Imaging for the Characterization of Geographic Atrophy.
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 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multimodal imaging for quantifying atrophic lesions in pathologic myopia.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Geographic atrophy in age-related macular degeneration: phenotypic characterisation for clinical trial consideration.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Review
- Comparison of effectiveness of geographic atrophy automatic segmentation with different imaging methods.Eye (London, England) · 2025Article
- The Complement System as a Therapeutic Target in Retinal Disease.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- Multimodal imaging and deep learning in geographic atrophy secondary to age-related macular degeneration.Acta ophthalmologica · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the performances of infrared (IR), fundus autofluorescence (FAF), and multicolor (MC) imaging in the characterization of geographic atrophy, with a focus on the possibility to detect incomplete retinal pigmented and outer retinal atrophy (iRORA) on en face imaging. Methods: The ground truth was established by two graders evaluating atrophy on spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) images. A score for visibility of foveal sparing and margins of atrophy was attributed. Measurement of the atrophic area and the fovea-to-margin distance were performed. Accuracy of detection of foveal sparing was evaluated through comparison with B-scan images ground truth, with/without the inclusion of patients with foveal iRORA. Results: Seventy patients were included in this study. Foveal sparing and atrophy's margins subjective visibility were significantly higher rated on MC images compared to IR and FAF (P < 0.005 and P < 0.001). Agreement with OCT B-scan assessed foveal sparing revealed a significantly higher area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC) for MC images at the analysis performed both with (0.876) and without (0.853) inclusion of patients with foveal iRORA (P < 0.001 and P = 0.006). Quantitative measurements revealed lower atrophy extension (P = 0.026) and fovea-to-margin distance (P = 0.019) with MC imaging. Conclusions: MC imaging performed better at foveal sparing assessment, especially in the setting of foveal iRORA. MC also resulted in higher visibility of atrophy's margins, lower atrophy extension measurements, and lower distance from the fovea to atrophy's margins compared to both FAF and IR. Translational Relevance: MC rated significantly higher in foveal sparing and atrophy detection, higher visibility of atrophy's margins, lower atrophy extension measurements, and lower distance from the fovea to atrophy's margins, compared to FAF and IR.
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.