ArticleActa ophthalmologica2026
Repeatability of retinal vessel flicker responses in healthy individuals.
Article in Acta ophthalmologica, 2026. 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.
- Dynamic Oculomics for Diagnostic Monitoring: Personal Ocular Trends, Risk Stratification and Treatment Response.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Repeatability of retinal vessel flicker responses in healthy individuals.Acta ophthalmologica · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine the repeatability of retinal blood vessel parameters (from proprietary software and the raw vessel data) measured in vivo in healthy individuals at rest, during and post flicker light (FL) provocation using a standardised protocol.
methodsWe recorded the diameters of one retinal artery and one vein in each of 33 healthy adult volunteers at rest, during and post FL provocation on two occasions using the Retinal Vessel Analyser (RVA). Repeat visits were scheduled at three different timepoints: (1) within 30 mins on the same day, (2) within a fortnight and (3) within a month (n = 11, each). All participants underwent intraocular and systemic blood pressure assessment to ensure these were comparable between visits.
resultsRetinal vessel parameters at rest, during and post FL provocation were comparable between all pairs of visits for all three groups. Repeatability between visits was assessed using Bland-Altman Analyses and Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICCs). Maximum dilation for arteries and veins and maximum constriction for arteries due to FL provocation computed from raw dilation data showed better repeatability than that generated by the RVA software. Time to reach maximum dilation in arteries and veins and maximum constriction in arteries was on average comparable but least repeatable between visits.
conclusionsRetinal vessel parameters computed from the raw RVA data may be superior in quality to the output from the proprietary software because the latter uses fixed narrow time-windows to determine the parameters. Variance within healthy controls, pathology groups and repeatability parameters alongside systemic haemodynamic parameters should be considered when utilising dynamic retinal vascular parameters as study endpoints.
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.