Observational studyScientific reports2023
Quantitative multimodal imaging of extensive macular atrophy with pseudodrusen and geographic atrophy with diffuse trickling pattern.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perilesional Fundus Autofluorescence Patterns Are Not Static: Longitudinal Transitions in Geographic Atrophy and Association with Disease Progression.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Clinical and Clustering-Based Subtyping of Extensive Macular Atrophy With Pseudodrusen-Like Appearance (EMAP).Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Incidence, Characteristics, and Outcomes of Macular Neovascularization in Extensive Macular Atrophy with Pseudodrusen-like Appearance.Retina (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2025Article
- Optical coherence tomography (OCT) and OCT-angiography in syndromic versus non-syndromicEuropean journal of ophthalmology · 2025Observational
- Extensive macular atrophy with pseudodrusen-like appearance: comprehensive review of the literature.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2024Review
- Integrating Machine Learning and Traditional Survival Analysis to Identify Key Predictors of Foveal Involvement in Geographic Atrophy.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare clinical and imaging characteristics of extensive macular atrophy with pseudodrusen-like appearance (EMAP) versus diffuse-trickling geographic atrophy (DTGA) and non-diffuse-trickling geographic atrophy (nDTGA) phenotypes of age-related macular degeneration. Prospective, observational study performed in the Ophthalmology Department of IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital between January 2015 and January 2021. Patients examination included fundus autofluorescence (FAF) and optical coherence tomography at baseline and follow-up visits. We measured subfoveal choroidal thickness (SCT), Sattler/choroid ratio (SCR), choroidal vascularity index and ellipsoid zone disruption distance on OCT scans. We calculated progression rates and circularity of the atrophic lesions on FAF images. These variables were compared between the three groups and correlations with progression rates and visual acuity were assessed. Sixty-three eyes from 63 patients were included: 18 with EMAP, 18 with DTGA and 27 with nDTGA. Mean follow-up was 3.73 ± 2.12 years. EMAP and DTGA shared a faster progression, lower circularity and SCR, and higher EZ disruption distance than nDTGA, while SCT and CVI were similar between the three groups. Baseline circularity and SCR correlated with progression rates. EMAP and DTGA show similar OCT and FAF characteristics, which differ from nDTGA.
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.