ArticleScientific reports2025
Quantitative comparison of a novel swept-source optical coherence tomography angiography device with three established systems.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Cross-Device Field-of-View Scale Differences in Clinical OCT Angiography: Phantom Calibration and Large-Scale Clinical Validation.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Noninterchangeability of Vessel Density Measurements Across Next-Generation SS-OCTA Systems.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- Quantitative Comparison of Two Novel Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography Devices.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Quantifying segmentation sensitivity in OCTA: Device-specific profiles across three commercial platforms.PloS one · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography (OCTA) has become an essential non-invasive imaging technique for high-resolution visualization of retinal microvasculature. This study evaluates the performance of a novel Swept-Source OCTA device, Intalight DREAM, compared to established systems: Heidelberg Spectralis, Topcon Triton, and Zeiss Cirrus. We assessed acquisition time and microvascular parameters in the superficial (SCP) and deep (DCP) capillary plexuses using the OCTA Vascular Analyser algorithm for standardized image analysis across devices on 30 eyes from 15 healthy participants. In the SCP, DREAM demonstrated a higher median vessel length (47 μm) and greater fractal dimension (mean: 1.999) than the other devices, indicating enhanced continuity and network complexity. In the DCP, DREAM showed a smaller foveal avascular zone (median: 0.339 mm
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.