ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2025
Assessment of Ocular Magnification in Relation to Biometric Parameters and Measurement Techniques: A Prospective Study.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2025. 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.
- Hypercortisolism and ocular microcirculation: exploring retinal and choroidal remodeling in Cushing's disease.International journal of 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of factors such as axial length (AL), spherical equivalent (SE), and keratometry (K) on longitudinal and lateral magnification and their impact on Bruch's membrane opening (BMO)-fovea distance and central foveal thickness (CFT) measurements. Methods: This prospective cross-sectional study included 437 eyes of 437 healthy participants aged 18 to 50 years with best corrected visual acuity of 20/20 or better. Participants were divided into three groups according to their refractive status: myopia (< -0.50 diopters [D]), emmetropia (-0.50 to +0.50 D), and hypermetropia (>+0.50 D). BMO-fovea distance and CFT were measured using a Topcon swept-source optical coherence tomography SS-OCT device, first without taking into account the magnification of the eye and then by incorporating individual AL, SE, and K into the system. Measurement errors greater than 5% were considered significant. Results: Longitudinal and lateral magnification affected BMO-fovea distance and CFT differently. Image size correction was required in 60% of BMO-fovea and 41% of CFT measurements. BMO-fovea distance was significantly influenced by lateral magnification, whereas CFT remained largely unchanged, indicating its primary association with longitudinal magnification. The highest correction need was observed in hypermetropic (87.7%) and short AL eyes (66.1%). Conclusions: It has been demonstrated that BMO-fovea distance is sensitive to lateral magnification, whereas CFT is mainly affected by longitudinal magnification. Neglecting these effects, particularly in hypermetropic and short AL eyes, may lead to significant measurement errors. These findings highlight the necessity of considering both longitudinal and lateral magnification corrections in retinal imaging.
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.