ArticleActa ophthalmologica2025
Fundus autofluorescence lifetimes in age-related macular degeneration versus healthy controls in a pseudophakic population.
Article in Acta ophthalmologica, 2025. 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.
- Fluorescence lifetimes and choriocapillaris flow deficits in intermediate age-related macular degeneration: a cross-sectional study.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Fundus autofluorescence lifetimes in age-related macular degeneration versus healthy controls in a pseudophakic population.Acta ophthalmologica · 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
Abstract
purposeTo check whether prolonged fundus autofluorescence (FAF) lifetimes in age-related macular degeneration (AMD) could be an artefact resulting from lens fluorescence.
methodsFluorescence lifetime imaging ophthalmoscopy (FLIO) was performed in pseudophakic intermediate AMD as well as healthy controls. The median values of FAF lifetimes in the centre, the inner and the outer ring of the ETDRS grid, obtained as amplitude-weighted mean of the lifetimes from a three-exponential fit of the fluorescence decay over time in two spectral channels, as well as peak emission wavelengths (PEW) were compared between patients and controls. The age dependence of FAF lifetime was checked per group. In the patient cohort, FAF lifetimes of individuals with and without subretinal drusenoid deposits (SDD) were compared.
resultsForty-four AMD patients (mean age 80.0 ± 6.0 years) and 26 controls (mean age 73.0 ± 10.2 years) were included. The FAF lifetimes of a subgroup of patients (N = 25, mean age 76.3 ± 5.6 years), age-matched to the controls, were significantly longer than those of the controls (all grid areas and spectral channels p < 0.001). FAF lifetimes increased with age in the controls (p = 0.006-0.03), but not in the patients. Patients with SDD had longer FAF lifetimes than those without (p = 0.003-0.068). PEW neither showed significant group differences nor age dependence.
conclusionsAlthough long fluorescence lifetimes of the lens can affect FAF lifetime measurements, prolonged FAF lifetimes in AMD are specific to the disease and not a lens artefact as shown in pseudophakic eyes. The effect of AMD on the lifetimes outweighs that of age. Patients with SDD, who have a higher risk of AMD progression, also show longer FAF lifetimes.
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.