ReviewJournal of glaucoma2024
Optical Coherence Tomography Versus Optic Disc Photo Assessment in Glaucoma Screening.
Review in Journal of glaucoma, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deriving OCT-Equivalent Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness Maps from Fundus Photographs with Deep Learning Improves Glaucoma Diagnosis.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Beyond Accuracy: A Controlled Comparative Glaucoma Screening Benchmark Across Deep Learning and Hybrid Models Under Within- and Cross-Dataset Conditions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Trends in Widefield Fundus Photography and Optical Coherence Tomography Examination in South Korea (2015-2024).Korean journal of ophthalmology : KJO · 2026Observational
- The Development and Validation of a Glaucoma Health Score for Glaucoma Screening Based on Clinical Parameters and Optical Coherence Tomography Metrics.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Early diagnostics and interventional glaucoma.Therapeutic advances in 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
PRÉCIS: Optical coherence tomography (OCT) and optic disc photography present valuable but distinct capabilities for glaucoma screening.
objectiveThis review article examines the strengths and limitations of OCT and optic disc photography in glaucoma screening.
methodsA comprehensive literature review was conducted, focusing on the accuracy, feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and technological advancements in OCT and optic disc photography for glaucoma screening.
resultsOCT is highly accurate and reproducible but faces limitations due to its cost and less portable nature, making widespread screening challenging. In contrast, optic disc photos are more accessible and cost-effective but are hindered by subjective interpretation and inconsistent grading reliability. A critical challenge in glaucoma screening is achieving a high PPV, particularly given the low prevalence of the disease, which can lead to a significant number of false positives. The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) and deep learning models shows potential in improving the diagnostic accuracy of optic disc photos by automating the detection of glaucomatous optic neuropathy and reducing subjectivity. However, the effectiveness of these AI models hinges on the quality of training data. Using subjective gradings as training data, will carry the limitations of human assessment into the AI system, leading to potential inaccuracies. Conversely, training AI models using objective data from OCT, such as retinal nerve fiber layer thickness, may offer a promising direction.
conclusionBoth OCT and optic disc photography present valuable but distinct capabilities for glaucoma screening. An approach integrating AI technology might be key in optimizing these methods for effective, large-scale screening programs.
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.