Observational studyScientific reports2024
Clinical significance of signal shadowing during intraoperative optical coherence tomography-assisted vitreoretinal surgery.
Observational study in Scientific 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.
- PSB-DSN: a two-stage unsupervised denoising enhancement network for OCT images based on pixel shuffle and blind spot masking.Biomedical optics express · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to analyze the clinical significance of signal shadowing during intraoperative optical coherence tomography (iOCT)-assisted vitreoretinal surgery caused by vitreoretinal instruments, tissue dyes, and vitreous substitutes, and to objectively quantify its impact on iOCT imaging. This is a retrospective observational study of postoperative image analysis from one hundred seventeen (117) patients who underwent iOCT-assisted vitrectomy. The image data were divided into three groups: vitreoretinal instruments, tissue dyes, and vitreous substitutes. The data was then processed using graphic software to measure the grade of picture quality distortion and compared to paired image controls without clinically perceptive interference, then analyzed statistically. The intraocular portion of all studied vitreoretinal instruments caused a high average gray level interference compared to controls ranging from 32 to 68% reduction, obscuring the area of interest significantly. The tips of the instruments produced low-grade shadowing, allowing the underlying tissue to be distinguished. The analyzed dyes demonstrated a wide interference range: ICG (- 75.12%), and triamcinolone (- 26.13%) showed dose-dependent high shadowing, while VITREODYNE™ (49.3%) and brilliant blue G (14.06%) exhibited no perceived distortions whilst increasing average gray levels. All analyzed vitreous substitutes (air, SF
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.