ArticleFrontiers in physiology2025
Device-based day-to-day and observer variability to quantify dilation capacity in the retinal microcirculation.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Interocular symmetry in dynamic retinal vessel analysis among healthy adults.Biomolecules & biomedicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Dynamic retinal analysis (DVA) is a validated method to quantify microvascular endothelial function. This study aimed to analyze day-to-day variability, intra- and interobserver variability and differences between two device generations. Methods: DVA was performed on two separate days and on two devices each, the DVA 2.0 and the DVA 3.0. One reader analyzed 20 signals of maximum arteriolar (aFID) and venular flicker-light induced dilation (vFID) twice to investigate intraobserver variability. A second reader independently analyzed 20 aFID and vFID signals to quantify interobserver variability. The interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the 95% confidence interval were used to quantify reliability. Results: The analysis of 26 participants (mean age 43 ± 14 years) showed moderate to good day-to-day variability for aFID (ICC 0.81 (0.57, 0.92), p = 0.037) and vFID (0.91 (0.80, 0.96), p < 0.001) of DVA 2.0 and low to moderate day-to-day variability for aFID (0.79 (0.49, 0.91), p = 0.076) and vFID (0.87 (0.61, 0.95), p = 0.022) of DVA 3.0. The analyses showed very good intraobserver (aFID and vFID: 0.999 (0.998, 1), p < 0.001) and interobserver variability (aFID: 0.997 (0.993, 0.999), p < 0.001; vFID: 0.998 (0.971, 0.995), p < 0.001). The measurements with devices DVA 2.0 and DVA 3.0 showed a moderate interdevice variability for aFID (0.76 (0.57, 0.89), p = 0.042) and vFID (0.87 (0.74, 0.93), p < 0.001). The ICC of aFID improved for day-to-day variability and interdevice variability after correcting for the baseline diameter. Conclusion: Consideration of arteriolar baseline diameter variations may further improve day-to-day and interdevice variability. This work underpins the necessity for standardized methods to support clinical implementation of the method and the need to consider arteriolar baseline diameters in future research and clinical applications.
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.