ArticleTaiwan journal of ophthalmology
Comparison of magnification corrected optic disc size by slit-lamp biomicroscopy, fundus photography, and optical coherence tomography.
Article in Taiwan journal of ophthalmology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeOptic disc size measurement is essential for determining landmarks, lesions, and distances of the retina. Due to the size variability in nature and when measured with different instruments, newer methods to compare sizes between different instruments are needed. We aimed to determine the comparability of slit lamp, fundus photography, and optical coherence tomography (OCT) measurements of optic disc size after correcting for both ocular and instrument magnification. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this prospective, observational study, optic disc size was measured by slit-lamp biomicroscopy, fundus photography, and OCT. Instrument and ocular magnification was calculated, and the measured size was corrected for both using the Littman formula. The corrected values were analyzed using Bland-Altman plots and intra-class correlation (ICC) for agreeability and correlation, respectively. Linear regression analysis was conducted to estimate the systematic errors and interconvertibility in cases of high correlation.
resultsFifty-six eyes were included for the analysis. Uncorrected and corrected values for each method had excellent correlation and agreeability (ICC absolute agreement >0.75,
conclusionUncorrected values of different methods for disc size measurement cannot be compared directly; they need ocular and instrument magnification correction. Among the three methods compared, the best interconvertible pairs of measurement were magnification corrected slit lamp and OCT values.
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.