ArticleOphthalmology. Glaucoma
Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Rates of Change: Comparison of 2 OCT Devices.
Article in Ophthalmology. Glaucoma. 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.
- An Artificial Intelligence-Based Prognostic Model for Prediction of Functional Glaucoma Progression From Clinical and Structural Data.American journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Optical coherence tomography acquisition efficiency: comparison of Heidelberg spectralis OCT2 module & Zeiss Cirrus HD-OCT model 6000.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness rates of change and their variability between 2 commercial OCT devices.
designProspective cohort study.
participantsNinety-four glaucoma eyes (94 patients) with central damage or moderate to advanced glaucoma with ≥ 2 years of follow-up and ≥ 4 pairs of OCT scans.
methodsA bivariate longitudinal Bayesian model was designed to compare inferences on RNFL rates of change from the 2 devices, both globally and in 12 clock hour sectors. Optic nerve OCT scans were acquired with Spectralis and Cirrus OCT devices in the same session. We inspected longitudinal RNFL profile plots from both OCT devices for all subjects across all sectors and globally.
main outcome measuresThe rates of change, longitudinal variances, and proportions of significant negative and positive slopes (slope < 0 or > 0 μm/year and 1-sided P < 0.025, respectively) were compared between the devices.
resultsThe mean (standard deviation) baseline 24-2 visual field mean deviation and median (range) follow-up time were -8.2 (5.5) dB and 4.5 (2.2-6.7) years, respectively. The mean (95% credible interval [CrI]) estimated global baseline RNFL thickness for Spectralis and Cirrus OCTs were 61.5 (58.6-64.1) and 65.3 (63.2-67.4) μm, respectively. The global RNFL rates of change for Spectralis and Cirrus OCTs were -0.70 μm/year (95% CrI = -0.88 to -0.51 μm/year) and -0.45 μm/year (95% confidence interval = -0.63 to -0.27 μm/year) and were significantly faster for Spectralis compared to Cirrus OCT (difference = -0.24 μm/year, 95% CrI -0.45 to -0.04 μm/year, P < 0.001) as were sectoral rates in 5 out of 12 sectors. Higher proportions of significant negative RNFL rates of change were found with Spectralis OCT globally and in clock hour sectors 2 to 6 and 8 to 10 (corresponding to nasal, inferonasal, inferotemporal, and temporal regions). The proportions of significant positive rates of change were small (0%-3%) across sectors and similar between the devices.
conclusionsSpectralis OCT rates of RNFL change were faster compared to those from Cirrus OCT. Spectralis OCT detected a higher proportion of significant negative rates globally and in some sectors. OCT devices are not comparable regarding detection of change in eyes with central damage or moderate to advanced glaucoma. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
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.