ArticleFrontiers in ophthalmology2026
Optical coherence tomography acquisition efficiency: comparison of Heidelberg spectralis OCT2 module & Zeiss Cirrus HD-OCT model 6000.
Article in Frontiers in 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Aims: To compare optical coherence tomography (OCT) acquisition times between the Heidelberg SPECTRALIS OCT2 Methods: A prospective observational study of 37 glaucoma or glaucoma suspect patients (72 eyes) aged ≥50 years undergoing routine imaging. Each participant received OCT imaging on both platforms during the same visit, with device order randomized. Acquisition times for optic disc/retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) and macular scans were recorded using a standardized protocol. Subgroup analyses were performed for eyes with vision worse than 20/40. Image quality and repeat attempts were documented. Results: Total scan time was significantly faster by 41 seconds per person using Cirrus 6000 compared to Spectralis OCT2 (115.9 ± 44.7 vs. 157 ± 46.4 seconds; p < 0.001). Cirrus 6000 also demonstrated significantly shorter RNFL acquisition times (50.8 ± 29.7) compared to Spectralis OCT2 (99.5 ± 32.7 seconds; p < 0.001). Macular scan times did not differ significantly (p = 0.180). Spectralis OCT2 achieved higher completion rates and required fewer repeat attempts. Image quality scores met manufacturer thresholds for acceptable scans in most cases, though direct cross-device comparison is precluded by different scoring scales. Conclusions: Cirrus 6000 offers meaningful time savings for RNFL imaging, which may improve workflow efficiency in high volume glaucoma clinics. However, Spectralis OCT2 demonstrated greater reliability in challenging imaging conditions. Device selection should be individualized based on patient characteristics, clinic workflow, and imaging priorities. There is no single superior platform; aligning device capabilities with clinical needs can optimize both efficiency and diagnostic reliability in glaucoma care. Precis: The Cirrus 6000 achieved significantly faster OCT acquisition times while the Spectralis OCT2 demonstrated greater reliability in challenging imaging conditions. These differences highlight how platform selection can influence workflow efficiency and imaging success in glaucoma clinics.
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.