ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2025
Analysing the translatability of macular hole size measurements between high-density horizontal and radial OCT scan patterns.
Article in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the interchangeability of minimum linear diameter (MLD) macular hole (MH) size measurements in high-density horizontal and radial scan modes in optical coherence tomography (OCT). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 60 patients with a MH had repeat high-density OCT volume scans in a horizontal (30 µm interscan-spacing) and a radial (angular 3.75° interscan-spacing) mode, and the MLD was measured by five raters.
resultsThere were no significant differences in the MLD measurements within the horizontal and the radial modes across repeat measurements of each rater in volume scan 1 (all p≥0.14 and p≥0.28, respectively), between volume scans 1 and 2 (all p≥0.14 and p≥0.69), among the raters (p=0.70 and p=0.60), and using all MLD measurements obtained in this study between primary and repeat measurements in volume scan 1 (p=0.10 and p=0.74) and between measurements obtained in volume scan 1 and 2 (p=0.21 and p=0.90).There was a statistically significant difference of -10.05 µm between the mean MLD of all measurements in the horizontal (n=900) and in the radial (n=900) mode (427.91 (±187.01) vs 437.97 (±184.93) µm; p<0.001). However, the variability of these differences around the mean MLD was large (95% limits of agreement -77.31 to 57.21 µm). The mean difference between all horizontal and all radial MLD measurements in a MH was for MHs that had their widest MLD within 15° of the horizontal, vertical and diagonal meridians 0.77 (±13.88) µm, -34.43 (±55.22) µm and -10.39 (± 34.62) µm, respectively.
conclusionsHorizontal scans systematically underestimate the maximum MLD if located vertically or diagonally; however, they have less intra-rater and inter-rater and inter-scan variability in MLD measurements as compared with radial scans. Therefore, the two scan modes are not interchangeable but rather complement each other. These results may be limited to the MLD range analysed (125-924 µm).
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.