ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2025
Quantitative Analysis of Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness Using SPECTRALIS Glaucoma Module Premium Edition and SPECTRALIS Standard Glaucoma Module.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the relationship between retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness measured by SPECTRALIS Glaucoma Module Premium Edition (GMPE) and SPECTRALIS Standard Glaucoma Module (SGM). Methods: This was a cross-sectional study of glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patients from an academic center between May and October 2023. Peripapillary RNFL thickness was measured using GMPE and SGM on the same day; only scans with good centration and reliable segmentation in both modalities were analyzed. Results: Of 1277 eyes (665 patients) reviewed, 766 eyes (465 patients) met inclusion criteria. Global and sectoral RNFL thicknesses were highly correlated between GMPE and SGM (r ≥ 0.844; ICC ≥ 0.706; P < 0.001 for all); however, global and sectoral RNFL thicknesses between the modules were significantly different (P < 0.001), except for the temporal (P = 0.199) and superotemporal (P = 0.282) sectors. Bland-Altman analysis revealed a global 3.31-µm systematic difference (95% limits of agreement, -7.04 to 13.66); 239 eyes (31.2%) and 63 eyes (8.2%) had a larger than 5-µm and 10-µm difference, respectively. Factors associated with greater absolute measurement differences included higher GMPE RNFL thickness (P < 0.001), lower GMPE scan quality (P = 0.040), and normal-tension glaucoma diagnosis compared to primary open-angle glaucoma (P = 0.028). Conclusions: Despite excellent correlation, global RNFL thickness and the RNFL thickness of most sectors differed significantly between GMPE and the SGM, sometimes markedly. Clinicians should consider these differences when interpreting or transitioning between modules in the management of glaucoma patients. Translational Relevance: Although highly correlated, GMPE reported thicker global and sectoral RNFL measurements than SGM, which is important when comparing longitudinal OCT follow-up using these modules.
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.