ArticleEye (London, England)2026
Sensitivity of ultra-widefield fundus photography for retinal break localisation in primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2026. 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.
- Ultra‑widefield imaging for retinal breaks: is it time for a head‑to‑head comparison with preoperative examination?Eye (London, England) · 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
BACKGROUND/
objectivesTo determine the sensitivity of ultra-widefield imaging (UWFI) for detecting retinal breaks in primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) and to evaluate its utility for preoperative localisation. SUBJECTS/
methodsWe included adults with primary RRD who underwent PPV and had preoperative UWFI. Intraoperative scleral indentation served as reference standard. Breaks were classified by morphology and by a fovea-centred, right-eye standardised clock-hour system. The primary outcome was causative-break detection on UWFI and quadrant-level sensitivities were secondary.
resultsAmong 363 eyes with primary RRD, 9 were excluded for vitreous haemorrhage, leaving 354 eyes for analysis. The causative break was detected on UWFI in 208 eyes (58.8%). All breaks were identified on UWFI in 148 eyes (41.8%). Compared with the not-detected group, the detected group was younger (57.8 ± 9.5 vs 61.3 ± 11.6, P = 0.003), had a higher phakic rate (84.6% vs 78.0%, P = 0.041), and showed a smaller detachment extent (1.88 ± 0.72 vs 2.08 ± 0.87 quadrants, P = 0.025). Horseshoe tears were more common in the detected group (80.3% vs 57.5%, P < 0.001), while round holes were more frequent in the not-detected group (42.5% vs 16.8%, P < 0.001). Overall sensitivity for all breaks was 49.1% (308/627). Detection was highest in the temporal quadrant (69.2%) and lower in the nasal (45.9%), superior (45.2%), and inferior (33.0%) quadrants. Clock-hour analysis peaked at 9 to 10 o'clock and was lowest at 5 to 6 o'clock, indicating better temporal and poorer inferior detection.
conclusionUWFI alone has limited sensitivity for detecting retinal breaks in patients undergoing retinal detachment repair. UWFI may complement but not replace scleral indentation in perioperative evaluation.
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.