Understanding normative retinal thickness characteristics is critical for diagnosis and monitoring of pathology, particularly in those predisposed to retinal disease. The macular retinal layer thickness of Australian Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander children was examined using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography.
High-resolution macular optical coherence tomography imaging was performed on 100 Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander children and 150 non-Indigenous visually healthy children aged 4-18 years. The imaging protocol included a 6-line radial scan centred on the fovea. Images were segmented using semi-automated software to derive thickness of the total retina, inner and outer retina, and individual retinal layers across the macular region. Repeated measures ANOVAs examined variations in thickness associated with retinal region, age, gender and Indigenous status.
Retinal thickness showed significant topographical variations (p < 0.01), being thinnest in the foveal zone, and thickest in the parafovea. The retina of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander children was significantly thinner than non-Indigenous children in the foveal (p < 0.001), parafoveal (p = 0.002), and perifoveal zones (p = 0.01), with the greatest difference in the foveal zone (mean difference: 14.2 μm). Inner retinal thickness was also thinner in Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander children compared to non-Indigenous children in the parafoveal zone (p < 0.001), and outer retinal thickness was thinner in the foveal (p < 0.001) and perifoveal zone (p < 0.001). Retinal thickness was also significantly greater in males than females (p < 0.001) and showed a statistically significant positive association with age (p = 0.01).
There are significant differences in macular retinal thickness between Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander children and non-Indigenous children, which has implications for interpreting optical coherence tomography data and may relate to risk of macula disease in this population.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 August 2022.
All research outputs
#24,773,717
of 34,386,255 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#157,436
of 224,596 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#281,143
of 455,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,820
of 2,903 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,386,255 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,596 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 455,015 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,903 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
