ArticleBiomedical reports2024
Comparative analysis of two retinal fractures with ultrabroad‑angle fundus photography systems.
Article in Biomedical reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic challenges in high myopia: identification of sight-threatening complications and the role of artificial intelligence.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to compare the performance of the Opel Panorama 200 and Zeiss Clarus 500 (Carl Zeiss AG) systems in diagnosing retinal fractures. Human subjects were selected from 298 fundus examinations (531 eyes) in ophthalmology from February 2021 to June 2021, including 68 patients with retinal fissures (95 eyes). All fundus tests were performed with Opel Panoramic 200. Zeiss Clarus 500 (Carl Zeiss AG) fundus photography, slit-lamp full retinal lens (Ocular Mainster Wide Field; Ocular Instruments), and retinal laser photocoagulation was performed for all affected eyes. The diagnostic sensitivity of the two examination methods was compared, and their sensitivities for posterior retina, peripheral nose, crystal eye, cataract, positive experiment, and myopia testing were compared. In all, 68 patients (95 eyes) were clinically examined and treated 112 laser times. For retinal fractures, the Opel Panorama 200 used a check sensitivity of 89.5%, and the Clarus 500 check had a sensitivity of 94.7%, with the difference being non-significant (P=0.358). Moreover, Clarus 500 diagnosed the sensitivity of the temporal periphery significantly higher than that of Opel Panorama 200 (P=0.048). Opel Panorama 200 displayed statistically significant sensitivity compared with Clarus 500 diagnosis with crystalline and crystal fewer eyes (P>0.05); Clarus 500 sensitivity for cataract diagnosis (crystal turbidity level 3 and above) was significantly higher than that of Opel Panorama 200 (P=0.033). Opel Panoramic 200 displayed significant sensitivity to ocular myopia and medium to moderate myopia (P>0.05). Clarus 500 diagnosed high myopia with a significantly higher sensitivity than Opel Panorama 200 (P=0.045). Opel Panorama 200 and Zeiss Clarus 500 displayed the same level of sensitivity to retinal fissures, with improved sensitivity in refractive turbidity and for retinal fissures located in the far periphery of the temporal side.
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.