Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38271188›Full record

ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2024

Correction Method for Optical Scaling of Fundoscopy Images: Development, Validation, and First Implementation.

Lennart J Pors, Corné Haasjes, Luc van Vught, Noor P Hoes, Gregorius P M Luyten, Gwyneth A van Rijn, T H Khanh Vu, Coen R N Rasch, Nanda Horeweg, Jan-Willem M Beenakker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Lennart J PorsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Corné HaasjesDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Luc van VughtDepartment of Ophthalmology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Noor P HoesDepartment of Ophthalmology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Gregorius P M LuytenDepartment of Ophthalmology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Gwyneth A van RijnDepartment of Ophthalmology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
T H Khanh VuDepartment of Ophthalmology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Coen R N RaschDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Nanda HorewegDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Jan-Willem M BeenakkerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Although fundus photography is extensively used in ophthalmology, refraction prevents accurate distance measurement on fundus images, as the resulting scaling differs between subjects due to varying ocular anatomy. We propose a PARaxial Optical fundus Scaling (PAROS) method to correct for this variation using commonly available clinical data. Methods: The complete optics of the eye and fundus camera were modeled using ray transfer matrix formalism to obtain fundus image magnification. The subject's ocular geometry was personalized using biometry, spherical equivalent of refraction (RSE), keratometry, and/or corneal topography data. The PAROS method was validated using 41 different eye phantoms and subsequently evaluated in 44 healthy phakic subjects (of whom 11 had phakic intraocular lenses [pIOLs]), 29 pseudophakic subjects, and 21 patients with uveal melanoma. Results: Validation of the PAROS method showed small differences between model and actual image magnification (maximum 3.3%). Relative to the average eye, large differences in fundus magnification were observed, ranging from 0.79 to 1.48. Magnification was strongly inversely related to RSE (R2 = 0.67). In phakic subjects, magnification was directly proportional to axial length (R2 = 0.34). The inverse relation was seen in pIOL (R2 = 0.79) and pseudophakic (R2 = 0.12) subjects. RSE was a strong contributor to magnification differences (1%-83%). As this effect is not considered in the commonly used Bennett-Littmann method, statistically significant differences up to 40% (mean absolute 9%) were observed compared to the PAROS method (P < 0.001). Conclusions: The significant differences in fundus image scaling observed among subjects can be accurately accounted for with the PAROS method, enabling more accurate quantitative assessment of fundus photography.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Techniques, OphthalmologicalRefraction, OcularCorneaFundus OculiHumansOphthalmoscopy

Identifiers

PMID38271188
PMCPMC10829800

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.