Evidence Hub

Optical Gap Biomarker in Cone-Dominant Retinal Dystrophy

Oh JK, Ryu J, Lima de Carvalho JR, Levi SR, Lee W, Tsamis E, Greenstein VC, Mahajan VB et al.

American journal of ophthalmology, 2020

746 participants · 10 citations

Abstract

Purpose: To characterize the progression of optical gaps and expand the known etiologies of this phenotype.

Design: Retrospective cohort study.

Methods: Thirty-six patients were selected based on the identification of an optical gap on spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (OCT) from a large cohort of patients (N = 746) with confirmed diagnoses of inherited retinal dystrophy. The width and height of the gaps in 70 eyes of 36 patients were measured by 2 independent graders using the caliper tool on Heidelberg Explorer. Measurements of outer and central retinal thickness were also evaluated and correlated with gap dimensions.

Results: Longitudinal analysis confirmed the progressive nature of optical gaps in patients with Stargardt disease, achromatopsia, occult macular dystrophy, and cone dystrophies (P < .003). Larger changes in gap width were noted in patients with Stargardt disease (78.1 μm/year) and cone dystrophies (31.9 μm/year) compared with patients with achromatopsia (16.2 μm/year) and occult macular dystrophy (15.4 μm/year). Gap height decreased in patients with Stargardt disease (6.5 μm/year; P = .02) but increased in patients with achromatopsia (3.3 μm/year) and occult macular dystrophy (1.2 μm/year). Gap height correlated with measurements of central retinal thickness at the fovea (r = 0.782, P = .00012). Interocular discordance of the gap was observed in 7 patients. Finally, a review of all currently described etiologies of optical gap was summarized.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 746 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free