SynthesisScientific reports2025
Choroidal vascularity index is independent of ocular and image-based factors in healthy eyes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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.
- Choroidal vascularity across aging and the spectrum of age-related macular degeneration: an AI-based OCT study.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Association between choroidal vascularity index and disease activity in Behçet uveitis using BOS24 and FFA scores.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Label-free assessment of a microfluidic vessel-on-chip model with visible-light optical tomography reveals structural changes in vascular networks.Lab on a chip · 2026Article
- Age related grid-wise spatial analysis of choroidal parameters in well characterised healthy population.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Choroidal vascularity index (CVI) has been extensively used to assess choroidal health in posterior eye disease; however, interpretation is hindered by conflicting evidence on effect of normal physiological factors on CVI. Thus, this review aimed to derive a normative value for CVI and understand its relationship with various normal ocular/image-based factors. Studies were screened for eligibility, defined as eyes with normal ocular parameters (refractive error (RxE) < ± 6 DS, intraocular pressure (IOP < 21 mmHg) and no posterior segment disease and 98 studies were included. Pooled weighted average of subfoveal CVI extracted from healthy eyes (n = 5332 eyes) was 66.50% [CI 65.67-67.32]. Secondary stratifications (time of scan, device wavelength, imaging mode, region of interest, systemic factors) and meta regression (age, RxE and IOP) were insignificant on CVI (p = 0.579-0.872), however Best corrected visual acuity showed positive correlation (p = 0.037). Unaltered, narrow confidence interval in sensitivity analysis, complemented by non-significant publication bias indicated robustness of the synthesised data. These results provide the highest-level evidence in hierarchy of the first normative subfoveal CVI value synthesised from literature and that it is not influenced by most person, eye and imaging factors in healthy eyes.
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.