ArticleEye (London, England)2026
Multimodal imaging for quantifying atrophic lesions in pathologic myopia.
Article in Eye (London, England), 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the reliability and agreement of four imaging modalities in quantifying patchy atrophy in highly myopic (HM) eyes.
methodsAtrophy area was manually delineated by two independent graders and measured using an in-built feature with four imaging modalities: infrared imaging with OCT B-scan (IR + SD-OCT), blue-light fundus autofluorescence (BAF), ultra-wide-field (UWF) pseudocolor fundus photography (PCFP) and UWF green fundus autofluorescence (GAF). Intragrader, intergrader and interdevice agreements were then assessed.
resultsThirty-two eyes of 30 patients were included. The mean axial length was 30.31 ± 1.56 mm. From 128 analyzed images, the best intragrader repeatability was observed with IR + SD-OCT for both graders (ICC = 0.998 and 0.999), followed by BAF (ICC = 0.998 and 0.997), UWF PCFP (ICC = 0.992 and 0.999) and UWF GAF (ICC = 0.967 and 0.985). IR + SD-OCT was also superior in terms of intergrader repeatability (ICC = 0.999), followed by ICC = 0.998 for BAF, ICC = 0.996 for UWF PCFP, and ICC = 0.985 for UWF GAF. The atrophy areas measured using each device correlated (r = 0.958-0.995; all p < 0.001), but differed significantly (p < 0.001). PCFP and BAF measured respectively the smallest and largest median area (2.14 mm² [IQR: 3.88 mm²] and 2.90 mm² [IQR: 5.28 mm²], respectively). A larger lesion size was associated with greater interdevice disagreement.
conclusionAll imaging modalities provided reliable atrophy area measurements, which correlated but differed significantly. IR + SD-OCT showed the strongest agreement.
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.