Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Evaluation of retinal nerve fiber layer and ganglion cell layer thickness in Alzheimer's disease using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography
Marziani E, Pomati S, Ramolfo P, Cigada M, Giani A, Mariani C, Staurenghi G.. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2013-09-05
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
Purpose To evaluate differences between the retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness and RNFL + ganglion cell layer (GCL) thickness in patients affected by Alzheimer's disease (AD) and healthy patients using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT). Methods This was a case-control prospective study. Twenty-one AD patients and 21 healthy subjects underwent neurological examination, clock-drawing test (CDT), Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), and comprehensive ophthalmic evaluation with visual acuity. SD-OCT examination was performed using Spectralis and RTVue-100. An RNFL thickness map was obtained using the Spectralis volume protocol with 19 lines on the 30° field centered on the macula. On each B-scan, the outer RNFL limit was manually set. Statistical analysis was performed to assess interoperator RNFL evaluation thickness. An RNFL+GCL thickness map was obtained using the RTVue-100 MM6 protocol. Maps were divided into the nine ETDRS subfields and each map value in every area was evaluated. A single eye from each patient was randomly chosen to perform the analysis. Differences between AD and healthy subjects were assessed. Results The two study groups were age and sex matched. MMSE results were 19.9 ± 3.1 and 27.9 ± 1.3, respectively (P < 0.001). There was good agreement in the manual delimitation of the RNFL layer. There was a significant difference in the thickness of both the RNFL and the RNFL+GCL in all examined fields. For example, in the inferior internal subfield, the RNFL thickness was 28.1 ± 3.1 μm for AD patients and 32.6 ± 3.8 μm for healthy subjects (P < 0.001). Conclusions These results indicate that RNFL and RNFL+GCL thickness measurements are reduced in AD patients compared with healthy subjects. This finding may represent a useful element for the diagnosis and follow-up of this pathology.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Marziani, E., Pomati, S., Ramolfo, P., Cigada, M., Giani, A., Mariani, C., et al. (2013). Evaluation of retinal nerve fiber layer and ganglion cell layer thickness in Alzheimer's disease using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.13-12046
Vancouver
Marziani E, Pomati S, Ramolfo P, Cigada M, Giani A, Mariani C, et al. Evaluation of retinal nerve fiber layer and ganglion cell layer thickness in Alzheimer's disease using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science. 2013. doi:10.1167/iovs.13-12046. PMID: 23920375.
BibTeX
@article{marziani2013-23920375,
author = {Marziani, E. and Pomati, S. and Ramolfo, P. and Cigada, M. and Giani, A. and Mariani, C. and Staurenghi, G.},
title = {{Evaluation of retinal nerve fiber layer and ganglion cell layer thickness in Alzheimer's disease using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography}},
journal = {Investigative ophthalmology \& visual science},
year = {2013},
doi = {10.1167/iovs.13-12046},
pmid = {23920375},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.13-12046}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results The two study groups were age and sex matched.
- MMSE results were 19.9 ± 3.1 and 27.9 ± 1.3, respectively (P < 0.001).
- There was a significant difference in the thickness of both the RNFL and the RNFL+GCL in all examined fields.
- Conclusions These results indicate that RNFL and RNFL+GCL thickness measurements are reduced in AD patients compared with healthy subjects.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Study designcase-control study
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 50/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a case-control study. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 50 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Investigative ophthalmology & visual science) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 6 / 12 | A case-control study |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2013 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 23920375) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 29 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 50 out of 100. |
| Total | 50 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Brain scans and imaging
Also tagged “optical”
151 studies in the library carry the topic tag “optical”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 151 tagged studies.