ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2023
Inter-Rater Reliability of Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy Assessment on Wide-Field OCT-Angiography and Fluorescein Angiography.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 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.
- Topographical Evaluation of Neovessels in Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy by Using a Multimodal Imaging Approach.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Large Pigment Epithelial Detachments Associated With Type 1 Macular Neovascularization: Do Swept-Source OCT Angiography Devices Detect the Same Thing?Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- Using OCT Angiography to Predict Diabetic Retinopathy Progression and Vision Decline in a Multiethnic Cohort.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Intergrader Agreement on Qualitative and Quantitative Assessment of Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Using Ultra-Widefield Imaging: INSPIRED Study Report 1.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Integrative Management of High-Risk Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: Precision Diagnostics via Ultra-Widefield Imaging and Therapeutic Strategies.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2025Review
- Advantages of the Utilization of Wide-Field OCT and Wide-Field OCT Angiography in Clinical Practice.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To assess inter-rater reliability in the detection of proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) changes using wide-field optical coherence tomography angiography (WF-OCTA) versus fluorescein angiography (FA). Methods: This retrospective, cross-sectional study included patients with severe nonproliferative and PDR. Images were acquired with 12 × 12 mm WF-OCTA and FA with a 55° lens. Images were cropped to represent the exact same field of view. Qualitative (detection of neovascularization at the disc [NVD] and elsewhere [NVE], enlarged foveal avascular zone [FAZ], vitreous hemorrhage [VH]) and quantitative analyses (FAZ area, horizontal, vertical, and maximum FAZ diameter) were performed by 2 masked graders using ImageJ. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using unweighted Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ) for qualitative analyses and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for quantitative analyses. Results: Twenty-three eyes of 17 patients were included. Inter-rater reliability was higher for FA than for WF-OCTA in qualitative analyses: κ values were 0.65 and 0.78 for detection of extended FAZ, 0.83 and 1.0 for NVD, 0.78 and 1.0 for NVE, and 0.19 and 1 for VH for WF-OCTA and FA, respectively. In contrast, inter-rater reliability was higher for WF-OCTA than for FA in the quantitative analyses: ICC values were 0.94 and 0.76 for FAZ size, 0.92 and 0.79 for horizontal FAZ diameter, 0.82 and 0.72 for vertical FAZ diameter, and 0.88 and 0.82 for maximum FAZ diameter on WF-OCTA and FA, respectively. Conclusions: Inter-rater reliability of FA is superior to WF-OCTA for qualitative analyses whereas inter-rater reliability of WF-OCTA is superior to FA for quantitative analyses. Translational Relevance: The study highlights the specific merits of both imaging modalities in terms of reliability. FA should be preferred for qualitative parameters, whereas WF-OCTA should be preferred for quantitative parameters.
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.