Observational studyBMJ open ophthalmology2024
Factors influencing the reliability of measurements in eyes with full-thickness macular holes: are we measuring incorrectly?
Observational study in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Peripheral instability gradient in macular thickness measurements across five optical coherence tomography systems: a prospective cross-sectional study of inter-device agreement and clinical monitoring risk.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Imaging biomarkers in ophthalmology: hype, hope or game-changer?BMJ open ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Analysing the translatability of macular hole size measurements between high-density horizontal and radial OCT scan patterns.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Novel Method to Measure Volumes of Retinal Specific Entities.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
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
purposeThe calliper function is used for manual measurements of full thickness macular holes (FTMHs). We aimed to investigate whether a reproducible difference could be detected beyond interobserver variability between two commonly used manufacturers in their manual calliper facility in spectral domain optical coherence tomography (OCT) for metrics related to FTMH.
methodsThis is a non-interventional, retrospective, observational study. Two independent observers examined 8 eyes (16 OCT) scans and 128 measurements (minimal linear diameter (MLD), basal diameter and hole height on both sides) of FTMHs, taken on Heidelberg Spectralis and Topcon Triton (OCT machines). The interobserver agreement and OCT machine agreement of measurements were analysed by Bland-Altman plots and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analysis. Spectralis and Triton had 125 µm and 50 µm horizontal b-scan spacing, respectively.
resultsOverall, we report high absolute agreement in interobserver (ICC 0.991 (95% CI 0.985 to 0.995, p<0.001)) and OCT machine (ICC 0.993 (95% CI 0.987 to 0.996, p<0.001)) variability. Lower horizontal resolution in Triton compared with Spectralis leads to interobserver variability, in smaller horizontal measurements. Lower horizontal scanning density in Spectralis lead to relatively large interobserver variation if different reference scans were chosen, and consistently smaller MLD measurements than Triton. Vertical measurements without 1:1 scaling lead to inaccurate exaggerated oblique vertical measurements. Calliper function appears otherwise identically calibrated.
conclusionsWe report excellent interobserver and OCT machine agreement in measurements. However, the paper shows several factors that could influence the reliability of measurements acquired in eyes with FTMHs, such as the dimension of the hole as well as different image resolution, density scanning protocols or vertical scaling of the OCT machines viewing platform.
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.