ReviewClinical & experimental ophthalmology2026
Interpreting Hyperreflective Foci in Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Critical Review of Cell Origins, Evolving Terminology and Clinical Utility.
Review in Clinical & experimental 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHyperreflective foci identified on optical coherence tomography are promising biomarkers in age-related macular degeneration. However, their clinical application is limited by inconsistent definitions and ongoing uncertainty regarding their cellular origin. This review critically evaluates the evidence underlying hyperreflective foci definitions, examines competing hypotheses of cellular origin, and assesses their clinical utility.
methodsA structured critical review was conducted using a systematic search of MEDLINE and Scopus in July 2025, identifying 164 publications reporting hyperreflective foci in age-related macular degeneration. Eligible studies included clinical imaging, clinicopathological, and histological investigations. Given substantial heterogeneity in study design and outcome measures, findings were synthesised interpretively across three domains: imaging definitions, cellular origin, and clinical associations.
resultsClinical OCT definitions for hyperreflective foci were heterogeneous across studies. Histologically, hyperreflective foci correspond to pigment-laden epithelioid cells that consistently express monocyte/macrophage markers (CD68, CD163, IBA1) and lack retinal pigment epithelium markers (RPE65, peropsin). These cells are interpreted as pigment-containing macrophages that have ingested RPE-derived material, or as transdifferentiated RPE cells. Clinically, increasing hyperreflective foci burden is associated with disease severity, progression to geographic atrophy, and localised functional deficits, although associations with neovascular conversion and treatment response are inconsistent.
conclusionsThe available evidence suggests hyperreflective foci are pigment-containing immune cells, although altered or displaced retinal pigment epithelium cells may also be involved, and independent replication is required. Interpreting hyperreflective foci within this biological context may refine their role in disease monitoring and risk stratification. Establishing consensus imaging criteria, grounded in cellular identity, will be important for clinical translation.
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.