Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(2)
Exact(12)
To study the mean choroidal thickness and volume of the macula in eyes with angioid streaks using swept source optical coherence tomography (OCT) in the 1050-nm wavelength range.
RESULTS: Mean choroidal thickness was greater in inverted versus upright images captured by Bioptigen (P ≤ 0.003) and Spectralis (P ≤ 0.015).
Bland-Altman plots of the mean choroidal thickness in various ETDRS subfields showed a significant agreement for the measurements by two independent graders (Figure 6).
In the eyes with convalescent stage of VKH, mean choroidal thickness in the foveal central subfield (200 ± 60 μm) was lower than in matched controls (288 ± 40 μm) (P < 0.0001).
In our study the mean choroidal thickness measurement was comparable, approximately 221.86 ± 28.47 μm.
In the study eyes, mean choroidal thickness was significantly lower compared to the control eyes (195.14 ± 23.19 μm and 221.86 ± 28.47 μm, respectively, p = 0.018).
Similar(48)
Table 1 shows the mean choroidal thicknesses by sector.
One-way analysis of variance with the Bonferroni post-test was used to calculate the difference between the mean choroidal thicknesses of different locations.
Mean average choroidal thickness was significantly reduced in advanced AMD as compared with control eyes (P =.008), with no significant difference between advanced and intermediate AMD eyes (P =.152) or between intermediate AMD and control eyes (P =.098).
No correlation was noted between average choroidal thickness and other factors (gender, refractive error, axial length, average retinal nerve fiber layer thickness, intraocular pressure, diastolic blood pressure, systolic blood pressure, mean blood pressure, diastolic ocular perfusion pressure, systolic ocular perfusion pressure, and mean ocular perfusion pressure).
Multivariate linear regression was used to evaluate the association of subfoveal choroidal thickness or average choroidal thickness across the central 3-mm segment with systemic and ocular variables.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com