ArticleEye (London, England)2024
Combined wide-field imaging in grading diabetic retinopathy.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2024. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence in diabetic retinopathy: from automated screening to risk-stratified care.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Review
- Intraretinal Microvascular Abnormalities in Eyes with Advanced Stages of Nonproliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: Comparison Between UWF-FFA, CFP, and OCTA-The RICHARD Study.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2024Article
- OCT angiography 2023 update: focus on diabetic retinopathy.Acta diabetologica · 2024Review
- Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography as a Diagnostic Tool for Diabetic Retinopathy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- A Complete Review of Automatic Detection, Segmentation, and Quantification of Neovascularization in Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography Images.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo detect retinal neovascularization elsewhere (NVE), of the optic disc (NVD) and intraretinal microvascular abnormalities (IRMA) in treatment naive diabetic retinopathy (DR) and compare these findings by using 90° Wide-Field Colour Fundus Photography (WF CFP), Wide-Field Spectral-Domain Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography (OCTA) and the combination of WF CFP and OCTA through overlay software.
methodsPatients with treatment naive severe non-proliferative DR or proliferative DR were prospectively enrolled. All patients underwent WF-CFP and OCTA in the same day. Two readers independently analysed WF-CFP, SD-OCTA and the overlay of the two techniques. The degree of agreement between the two raters and between different techniques (WF CFP, OCTA, WF CFP combined to OCTA) were measured with Cohen's Kappa coefficient.
resultsThirty-one eyes from 21 patients (10 males, mean age 63 ± 15 years) were included. Inter-rater agreement by using WF-CFP in detection of NVE, NVD and IRMA was respectively 0.62, 0.22 and 0.55. OCTA scored values of inter-rater agreement of 0.86, 0.87 and 0.92 in detection of NVE, NVD and IRMA, respectively. By combining WF-CFP and SD-OCTA, inter-rater agreement in detection of NVE, NVD and IRMA was 0.93, 0.94 and 0.89, respectively.
conclusionInter-rater agreement in detection of NVE, NVD and IRMA was substantial, fair and moderate, respectively. OCTA provided almost perfect values of inter-rater agreement in NVE, NVD and IRMA detection. Combining WF-CFP and OCTA further empowered concordance values in detection of NVE and NVD. Combining OCTA and WF-CFP is the best performance to detect NVE and NVD.
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.