ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2026
Repeatability, reproducibility, and agreement regarding measurement of choroidal vascularity index between OCT and OCT angiography.
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo explore the repeatability, reproducibility, and agreement in the measurement of the choroidal vascularity index (CVI) for different swept-source optical coherence tomography (OCT) devices and between OCT and OCT angiography (OCTA) images.
methodsTwo swept-source OCT imaging systems, VG200I and Topcon DRI OCT Triton, were used to capture OCT and OCTA images in triplicate. The first and third images were taken by one operator, and the second image was taken by another operator. The built-in software was used to calculate the CVI from the OCTA images (CVI-OCTA), and a custom-designed algorithm was used to calculate the CVI from the OCT images (CVI-OCT). Repeatability and reproducibility were assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and agreement between devices and between OCT and OCTA were evaluated with Bland-Altman analysis.
resultsSixty-eight eyes from 35 adults (17 females) were included in the analysis. The average age of the participants was 23.6±2.3y, with an average spherical equivalent refraction of -3.08±2.47 D and an average AL of 25.21±1.20 mm. Both OCT devices demonstrated high repeatability and reproducibility in measuring the CVI-OCTA (all ICCs>0.894 across five choroidal regions) and CVI-OCT (all ICCs>0.838). Furthermore, the between-device agreement in measuring the CVI-OCT was good [mean difference (MD) ranging from -2.32% to -3.07%], but that in measuring the CVI-OCTA was poor (MD, 1.48% to -7.43%). Additionally, the between-imaging agreement (CVI-OCTA versus CVI-OCT) was poor for both devices (Triton, MD, 6.05% to 12.68%; VG200I, MD, 6.67% to 12.09%).
conclusionBoth OCT devices and the two analytical methods demonstrate good stability. The inter-device consistency of CVI-OCT is good, while the inter-device consistency of CVI-OCTA and the consistency between the two analytical methods in the same device are both poor.
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.