The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Normal Macular Thickness Measurements in Healthy Eyes Using Stratus Optical Coherence Tomography
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To report normal macular thickness measurements in healthy eyes using the latest commercially available optical coherence tomography (OCT) mapping software, version 3.0, from the Stratus OCT (OCT3). METHODS: Thirty-seven eyes from 37 healthy subjects underwent a complete ophthalmologic examination, including OCT. Six radial scans, 6 mm in length and centered on the fovea, were obtained using the OCT3. Retinal thickness was automatically calculated by OCT mapping software. Measurements were displayed as the mean and standard deviation for each of the 9 regions defined in the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study. RESULTS: Foveal thickness (mean thickness in the central 1000-microm diameter area) and central foveal thickness (mean thickness at the point of intersection of 6 radial scans) on the OCT3 were 212 +/- 20 and 182 +/- 23 microm, respectively. Macular thickness measurements were thinnest at the center of the fovea, thickest within 3-mm diameter of the center, and diminished toward the periphery of the macula. The temporal quadrant was thinner than the nasal quadrant. Central foveal thickness was also manually determined as 170 +/- 18 microm, approximately 12 microm less than the value automatically obtained from the OCT3 software. There was no correlation between age and foveal thickness (P = .80). CONCLUSIONS: Mean foveal thickness measurements were 38 to 62 microm thicker than previously reported values, while mean central foveal thickness measurements were 20 to 49 microm thicker than previously published values. This discrepancy should be considered when interpreting OCT scans.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Maguire, M. G., Martin, D. F., Ying, G.-S., Jaffe, G. J., Daniel, E., Grunwald, J. E., Toth, C. A., Ferris, F. L., & Fine, S. L. (2016) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.03.045 · Cited by 708
IMI – Report on Experimental Models of Emmetropization and Myopia
Troilo, D., Smith, E. L., Nickla, D. L., Ashby, R., Tkatchenko, A. V., Ostrin, L. A., Gawne, T. J., Pardue, M. T., Summers, J. A., Kee, C.-S., et al. (2019) · Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science · doi:10.1167/iovs.18-25967 · Cited by 487
Ranibizumab for Macular Edema Due to Retinal Vein Occlusions
Heier, J. S., Campochiaro, P. A., Yau, L., Li, Z., Saroj, N., Rubio, R. G., & Lai, P. (2012) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.12.005 · Cited by 470
Jaffe, G. J., Martin, D. F., Toth, C. A., Daniel, E., Maguire, M. G., Ying, G.-S., Grunwald, J. E., & Huang, J. (2013) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.01.073 · Cited by 294
Sharma, S., Toth, C. A., Daniel, E., Grunwald, J. E., Maguire, M. G., Ying, G.-S., Huang, J., Martin, D. F., & Jaffe, G. J. (2016) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.12.002 · Cited by 231
Metadata
- Authors
- Chan, A.
- Venue
- Archives of Ophthalmology
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2006-02-01
- Volume
- 124
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 193
- ISSN
- 0003-9950 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2168451815
- Cited by
- 424
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 24.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Normal Macular Thickness Measurements in Healthy Eyes Using Stratus Optical Coherence Tomography. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archopht.124.2.193
- The paper
- Chan, A. (2006). Normal Macular Thickness Measurements in Healthy Eyes Using Stratus Optical Coherence Tomography. Archives of Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.124.2.193
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.