Observational studyBMC ophthalmology2026
Prevalence of choroidal naevi in Germany: a cross-sectional analysis of the BiDirect study.
Observational study in BMC 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
backgroundChoroidal naevi (CN) are small, and mostly asymptomatic choroidal lesions. Despite their benignity, identification and follow-up of CN is required as malignant transformation is possible. CN prevalence was shown to vary greatly depending on ethnical descent, but data from European countries are rare. The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of CN based on fundus images from participants of the prospective German BiDirect study.
methodsObservational cross-sectional study of participants aged 37-68 years separated into three cohorts: patients with (1) depression, (2) acute cardiovascular disease, (3) participants of the general population. Participants with at least one 45°-wide macula-centred image of both eyes were included. General health indicators and eye function were assessed. The prevalence of posteriorly localised CN was calculated. Age-standardization was performed using the European Standard Population of 2013 (ESP2013) and the U.S. 2000 Standard Population (US2000). To estimate the entire fundus prevalence of CN, we applied a correction factor of 2.5 based on the assumption that 40% of all CN were detected by the study's method. A sensitivity analysis was also performed. The association between CN presence and health indicators was investigated using logistic regression.
results1170 participants were included. When fundus image was acquired, participants were aged 37-68 years (mean ± standard deviation: 54 ± 7.8) and 49% were females. Mean visual acuity was 0.20 ± 0.2 LogMAR on both eyes. At least one CN was detected in 36 participants. Thus, the crude prevalence of posterior CN was 3.1% (95% confidence interval: 2.1-4.1). After age-standardization, ESP2013-prevalence was 2.6% (95% CI: 2.2-3.0). A sensitivity analysis was performed to explore the potential prevalence of CN in the entire fundus; if 40% of CN were detected by our method, the entire fundus prevalence would be 7.7% (95% CI: 6.1-9.3). No association between CN and age, sex, or general health indicators was identified; the presence of CN did not impact visual acuity.
conclusionsIn regions with demographics like those in the German BiDirect study, posteriorly localised CN can be expected in approximately 3.1% of the population. However, the prevalence of CN across the entire fundus remains difficult to determine.
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.