ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2024
Quantifying ocular microcirculation in hypertension patients with carotid artery stenosis.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Postpartum cardiac complications after hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: predictive roles of retinal arteriolar-to-venular ratio and NT-proBNP.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- The Relevance of Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography in Screening and Monitoring Hypertensive Patients with Carotid Artery Stenosis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Carotid artery stenosis (CAS) is one of the most common macrovascular complications of hypertension. The ophthalmic artery springs from the internal carotid artery; however, the effect of CAS on ocular microcirculation has not been quantified in hypertension patients. This study aimed to quantify ocular microcirculation metrics in hypertension with CAS (HCAS) patients and to explore the relationship between micro- and macroangiopathy in hypertension. Methods: All participants (community-based) underwent detailed assessments, including carotid ultrasonography, optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA), and enhanced depth imaging (EDI)-OCT. CAS was diagnosed using carotid ultrasonography. Retinal microcirculation metrics, including vessel density (VD), skeleton density (SD), fractal dimension (FD), and foveal avascular zone (FAZ), were quantified using OCTA and ImageJ software. Choroidal microcirculation metrics, including subfoveal choroidal thickness (SFCT), luminal area (LA), and choroidal vascularity index (CVI), were quantified using EDI-OCT and ImageJ. Retinal vessel caliber metrics, including central retinal artery equivalent (CRAE), central retinal vein equivalent (CRVE), and artery/vein ratio (AVR), were calculated using revised formulas. The above metrics were compared among the HCAS group, hypertension with no CAS (HNCAS) group, and healthy control group. The mutual effects between ocular metrics and CAS were evaluated using regression analyses. Results: In a comparison of the HCAS vs. HNCAS groups, retinal metrics including VD, SD, FD, and choroidal metrics including CVI and LA were significantly decreased in the HCAS group (all Conclusion: CAS in hypertension-induced hypoperfusion in retinal and choroidal microcirculation and the decreased retinal VD and choroidal CVI were significantly associated with the presence of CAS in patients with hypertension, suggesting that hypertension macro- and microangiopathy were mutually affected and share the common pathophysiology. Furthermore, OCT could be a useful tool to assess hypertension patient's CAS risk profiles in a non-invasive way.
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.