ArticleFrontiers in medicine2023
Agreement, repeatability, and reproducibility of quantitative retinal layer assessment using swept-source and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography in eyes with retinal diseases.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retinal Structural and Microvascular Findings During Novel NPR-B-Targeted Vosoritide Therapy in Children with Achondroplasia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Dynamic Oculomics for Diagnostic Monitoring: Personal Ocular Trends, Risk Stratification and Treatment Response.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Changes in choroidal and retinal thickness 6 months before and during 18 months of orthokeratology lens treatment in myopic children.Acta ophthalmologica · 2026Article
- Deep learning strategies for estimating retinal thickness from fundus images: a comparative study with multi-device data.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Comparison of Two Spectral-Domain Optical Coherence Tomographs for Macular Thickness in Romanian Children Reveals Device-Dependent Normative Data and Significant Gender Differences.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Brain and retina in Alzheimer's disease: Pathological intersections and estimates from imaging.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025Review
- The novel antidiabetic medications on diabetic retinopathy: relevant molecular mechanisms, advancing diagnostic innovations, and therapeutic implications.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Comparison of macular retinal thickness measurements using spectral-domain and swept-source optical coherence tomography in healthy eyes.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Clinical Performance of Semi-Automated Spectral-Domain Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Applications of deep learning in the analysis of optical coherence tomography images for glaucoma-related diagnostics.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the agreement and precision of retinal thickness measurements obtained using swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) and spectral-domain OCT (SD-OCT) in healthy eyes and eyes with retinopathy. Methods: This cross-sectional prospective study involved three DRI-OCT Triton (SS-OCT) and three 3D-OCT-1 Maestro (SD-OCT) devices. One of each device (Maestro and Triton) was paired with a single operator. Healthy subjects and patients with retinal diseases were recruited, with study eye and testing order randomized. At least 3 scans per eye were captured for wide scan (12 mm × 9 mm-Triton and Maestro) and macular cube scan (7 mm × 7 mm-Triton, 6 mm × 6 mm-Maestro). Thickness of the full retina, ganglion cell layer + inner plexiform layer (GCL+), and ganglion cell complex (GCL++) were obtained from wide scan and cube scans. Agreement of the measurements between the Triton and Maestro was evaluated by Bland-Altman analysis and Deming regression for each group. Repeatability and reproducibility were assessed using a two-way random effect analysis of variance (ANOVA) model for each parameter by group. Results: Twenty-five healthy subjects (25 eyes) and 26 patients with retinal diseases (26 eyes), including, but not limited to, age-related macular degeneration, macular hole, and diabetic retinopathy were recruited. Overall, the measurement differences between Triton and Maestro were <6 μm (mean differences of full retina, GCL++, and GCL+ thickness were ≤5.5 μm, 1.3 μm, and 2.8 μm, respectively) and not statistically significant across the parameters. The repeatability and reproducibility estimates indicate high precision in both devices and groups. Across all the parameters, the repeatability limit was ≤7.6 μm for Triton and ≤12.7 μm for Maestro; reproducibility limit was ≤9.2 μm for Triton and ≤14.4 μm for Maestro. In eyes with retinal pathology, the repeatability coefficient of variation (CV)% was ≤2.6% for Triton and ≤3.4% for Maestro; reproducibility CV% was ≤3.3% for Triton and ≤3.5% for Maestro. Conclusion: Both Triton SS-OCT and Maestro SD-OCT provide reliable measurements of retinal thickness in healthy eyes and eyes with retinal diseases. Excellent agreement between the two devices indicates interoperability when testing healthy eyes or eyes with retinal pathology. These findings support the use of thickness measurements from Triton SS-OCT and Maestro SD-OCT in clinical practice.
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.