Observational studyGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2024
Associations of quantitative contrast sensitivity with wide-field swept-source optical coherence tomography angiography in retinal vein occlusion.
Observational study in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2024. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Self-perceived and measured visual function, the impact of eye-disease, wellbeing, social determinants, and personality traits in Swedish 70-year-olds-results from the Gothenburg H70 Study.Acta ophthalmologica · 2025Article
- Association of contrast sensitivity with vessel density and functional parameters in different stages of glaucoma.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025Article
- OCT angiography 2023 update: focus on diabetic retinopathy.Acta diabetologica · 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
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate associations between contrast sensitivity (CS) and vascular metrics on wide-field swept-source optical coherence tomography angiography (WF-SS-OCTA) in patients with retinal vein occlusion (RVO).
methodsThis prospectively recruited, cross-sectional observational study included RVO patients who underwent quantitative CS function (qCSF) testing and WF-SS-OCTA using 3 × 3, 6 × 6, and 12 × 12 mm angiograms on the same day. The study measured several qCSF outcomes and WF-SS-OCTA vascular metrics, including vessel density (VD), vessel skeletonized density (VSD), and foveal avascular zone (FAZ). The data were analyzed using multivariable regression analysis controlling for age and central subfield thickness (CST).
resultsA total of 43 RVO eyes of 43 patients and 30 fellow eyes were included. In RVO eyes, multiple vascular metrics were associated with CS outcomes but not visual acuity (VA). On 12 × 12 images, CS thresholds at 1 cpd, 1.5 cpd, and 3 cpd were significantly associated with VD and VSD, but VA was not. When comparing standardized regression coefficients, we found that vascular metrics had a larger effect size on CS than on VA. For instance, the standardized beta coefficient for FAZ area and CS at 6 cpd (β* = - 0.46, p = 0.007) was larger than logMAR VA (β* = 0.40, p = 0.011).
conclusionMicrovascular changes on WF-SS-OCTA in RVO had a larger effect size on CS than VA. This suggests CS may better reflect the microvascular changes of RVO compared to VA. qCSF-measured CS might be a valuable adjunct functional metric in evaluating RVO patients.
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.