ArticleScientific reports2023
Retest variability and patient reliability indices of quantitative fundus autofluorescence in age-related macular degeneration: a MACUSTAR study report.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence for diagnosing exudative age-related macular degeneration.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Validating candidate endpoints for intermediate age-related macular degeneration trials in a multi-centre setting-lessons from the MACUSTAR study.Eye (London, England) · 2025Review
- Topographic Analysis of Two-Wavelength Autofluorescence Supports Higher Macular Xanthophyll Pigment in AMD Than Aging: ALSTAR2 Baseline.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- Age-Related Macular Degeneration, a Mathematically Tractable Disease.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 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
12 authors at 20 institutions in 10 countries.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to determine the retest variability of quantitative fundus autofluorescence (QAF) in patients with and without age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and evaluate the predictive value of patient reliability indices on retest reliability. A total of 132 eyes from 68 patients were examined, including healthy individuals and those with various stages of AMD. Duplicate QAF imaging was conducted at baseline and 2 weeks later across six study sites. Intraclass correlation (ICC) analysis was used to evaluate the consistency of imaging, and mean opinion scores (MOS) of image quality were generated by two researchers. The contribution of MOS and other factors to retest variation was assessed using mixed-effect linear models. Additionally, a Random Forest Regressor was trained to evaluate the extent to which manual image grading of image quality could be replaced by automated assessment (inferred MOS). The results showed that ICC values were high for all QAF images, with slightly lower values in AMD-affected eyes. The average inter-day ICC was found to be 0.77 for QAF segments within the QAF8 ring and 0.74 for peripheral segments. Image quality was predicted with a mean absolute error of 0.27 on a 5-point scale, and of all evaluated reliability indices, MOS/inferred MOS proved most important. The findings suggest that QAF allows for reliable testing of autofluorescence levels at the posterior pole in patients with AMD in a multicenter, multioperator setting. Patient reliability indices could serve as eligibility criteria for clinical trials, helping identify patients with adequate retest reliability.
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.