ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Repeatability, reproducibility, and agreement for three optical coherence tomography instruments.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Normative Values of Retinal and Choroidal Thickness in a Healthy Pediatric Population Using DRI Triton SS-OCT.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Observational
- Choroidal Changes after Intravitreal Aflibercept, Faricimab, Brolucizumab, and High-Dose Aflibercept in Treatment-Naïve Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Peripheral instability gradient in macular thickness measurements across five optical coherence tomography systems: a prospective cross-sectional study of inter-device agreement and clinical monitoring risk.BMC medical imaging · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo explore the repeatability, reproducibility and agreement for three optical coherence tomography (OCT) in measuring retinal (RT) and choroidal thickness (ChT).
methodsSixty-eight eyes were included. The average RT and ChT were obtained with VG200I and Triton, while only the subfoveal RT (SFRT) and ChT (SFChT) were measured with RTVue. Operator 1 conducted two examinations to assess repeatability, and operator 2 conducted one for reproducibility. Built-in software was used to calculate RT-auto and ChT-auto, and custom-designed algorithms were used to calculate ChT-custom to assess interanalysis and intermachine agreements.
resultsThe intraclass correlation coefficients for the repeatability and reproducibility were larger than 0.760 and 0.940 with VG200I, 0.890 and 0.910 with Triton, and 0.960 and 0.975 with RTVue, respectively. The intermachine differences for SFRT and SFChT were - 8.82 ± 3.15 μm and - 41.89 ± 8.21 μm (VG200I vs. RTVue), -26.86 ± 3.15 μm and - 56.60 ± 7.81 μm (Triton vs. RTVue), and 18.04 ± 2.01 μm and 14.71 ± 3.02 μm (VG200I vs. Triton), respectively. The mean differences between VG200I and Triton in RT, ChT-auto and ChT-custom across the different regions ranged between 16.34 and 27.80 μm, 66.53 and 96.93 μm, and 4.48 and 18.32 μm, respectively. The mean differences between ChT-auto and ChT-custom across the different regions ranged between 29.06 and 43.71 μm for VG200I and - 48.73 and - 27.98 μm for Triton. The intermachine correlations were high, with ρ > 0.655 for all parameters.
conclusionThe three OCT devices all showed great repeatability and reproducibility, while the agreements between them were poor.
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.