ArticleThe British journal of ophthalmology2023
Evaluation of diabetic retinopathy severity on ultrawide field colour images compared with ultrawide fluorescein angiograms.
Article in The British journal of ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diabetic Retinopathy Severity on Ultra-Widefield Fluorescein Angiography versus Color Photography and Association with Risk of Disease Worsening.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Translation of Color Fundus Photography into Fluorescein Angiography Using Deep Learning for Enhanced Diabetic Retinopathy Screening.Ophthalmology science · 2023Article
- Inference of Capillary Nonperfusion Progression on Widefield OCT Angiography in Diabetic Retinopathy.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) diabetic retinopathy (DR) severity on ultrawide field (UWF) colour imaging (CI) and UWF fluorescein angiography (FA).
designCross-sectional retrospective review. SUBJECTS: Patients with diabetes mellitus and at least mild non-proliferative DR on UWF-CI.
methodsUWF-CI and UWF-FA images acquired within 1 month of each other were evaluated independently using ETDRS DR Severity Scale (DRSS) for colour photography adapted for UWF-CI and UWF-FA. Extent of non-perfusion (NP, mm
main outcome measuresAgreement rate between DRSS on UWF-CI and UWF-FA.
resultsImages from 218 eyes of 137 patients with diabetes were evaluated. Agreement rate for DRSS between UWF-CI and UWF-FA was moderate to substantial (K=0.46, Kw=0.65). Over-all, DRSS was worse in 73 (33.5%) eyes on UWF-FA and in 16 (7.3%) on UWF-CI. Compared to UWF-CI, UWF-FA identified more severe DRSS in 26.5% (1 step) and 7.34% (≥2 steps) of eyes. DRSS was worse than UWF-FA in 56 (51.4%) in early DR (ETDRS levels 20-47, N=109) and 17 (15.6%) in eyes with severe DR (53 and higher, N=109). In this cohort, the extent of NP significantly increased as eyes approach moderate non-proliferative DR (levels 43-47, p=0.0065).
conclusionWhen evaluating UWF-FA images using the ETDRS colour severity scale, DRSS is graded as more severe in a substantial number of eyes than when evaluating UWF-CI. It is uncertain how the DRSS levels using UWF-FA translate to clinical outcomes, but the additional lesions detected might provide added prognostic value. These and other recent data emphasise the need of obtaining outcome data based on UWF-FA and the potential need to develop DRSS specifically tailored for UWF-FA images.
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.