Using ultra-widefield red channel images to improve the detection of ischemic central retinal vein occlusion.

PURPOSE: To examine the usefulness of red channel fundus imaging to detect the ischemic status in eyes with central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO).
METHODS: Ultra-widefield (UWF) fundus images were obtained from 42 eyes with CRVO. Twenty-one eyes were ischemic, and 21 eyes were non-ischemic. Rubeosis was found in 11 ischemic eyes. UWF images were split into red and green channels using ImageJ software. Both the color and red channel images were used to predict the presence or absence of ischemia when examined by masked graders. The sensitivity and specificity of UWF imagings for the detection of ischemia were calculated in Group A (total 42 eyes), Group B (32 eyes excluding non-rubeotic ischemic CRVO) and Group C (31 eyes excluding rubeotic ischemic CRVO), respectively. Moreover, a linear mixed model was conducted to investigate the relationship between the type of images and the accuracy of prediction in each group.
RESULTS: No significant difference in the sensitivity of color fundus imaging was seen between Group A and Group B. By contrast, a significant difference in the sensitivity of red channel imaging was seen between Group A and Group B (p = 0.031). The accuracies of the predictions were not associated with the type of image in Group A and Group B, but were significantly associated in Group C (p = 0.026).
CONCLUSIONS: UWF red channel imaging enabled more accurate detection of the ischemic status, compared with color fundus images, especially in non-rubeotic CRVO eyes.

Introduction

Central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) is one of the most common causes of severe vision impairment and blindness [1-3]. CRVO is classified into “ischemic” and “non-ischemic” subtypes based on the retinal capillary perfusion status. In general, ischemic CRVO is associated with a poorer visual outcome than non-ischemic CRVO [4]. Moreover, rubeotic or neovascular glaucoma is a main cause of severe vision loss in eyes with CRVO, developing in about half of ischemic CRVO cases [5]. Therefore, discriminating ischemic CRVO from non-ischemic CRVO is clinically important and is usually performed using fluorescein angiography.

Retinal hemorrhages in retinal vein occlusion (RVO) eyes are referred to as flame-shaped (splinter-shaped) and sometimes as blot or dot shaped [6], where the former is usually suggestive of hemorrhage in the superficial retinal layer and the latter is usually indicative of hemorrhage in the deep retinal layers. This difference is clinically very important, since flame-shaped hemorrhages tend to be associated with non-ischemic retinas and dot hemorrhages are related to ischemic retinas in eyes with branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO), as revealed by a precise evaluation of the perfusion status in RVO using the recent development of optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) [7]. In other words, hemorrhages in the deep retinal layer are suggestive of an ischemic status in RVO patients.

Recently, the use of ultra-widefield (UWF) imaging has become widely used for the diagnosis of retinal diseases in clinical settings. UWF fundus images can be obtained in a non-contact and non-mydriatic fashion and therefore offer advantages for screening. Thus, it would be clinically advantageous if ischemic CRVO could be detected using UWF images; however, such examinations are not straightforward, particularly for non-retinal specialists such as residents. The Optos (Optos 200Tx; Optos, Dunfermline, UK) allows the visualization of the retina at 200 degrees in a single frame, and previous studies have suggested its utility for the diagnosis of several retinal diseases [8,9]. In contrast to other fundus color images, the Optos system acquires pseudocolor images by combining only red and green scanning lasers. Alhamami et al. recently reported the usefulness of splitting red channel images from color fundus images for the early detection of diabetic macular edema [10]. In general, red channel (long wavelength) images are advantageous for observing the deep retinal layer, implying that red channel imaging might be useful for the analysis of hemorrhages in the deep retinal layer when determining the ischemic status of the retina. We hypothesized that red channel imaging might be useful for evaluating the ischemic status in eyes with CRVO, even for ophthalmology residents, because retinal hemorrhages detected by red channel imaging occur in the deep retinal layer. Thus, the current study examined the usefulness of red channel images separated from UWF images to detect the ischemic status in eyes with CRVO.

Methods

The study adhered to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, and written informed consent was obtained from all the eligible patients. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Yokohama City University Medical Center.

Patients

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of consecutive patients with CRVO. All the patients underwent comprehensive ophthalmologic examinations, including a visual acuity test, slit-lamp biomicroscopy, fluorescein angiography (FA), and UWF color fundus photography using an Optos device. Visual acuity (VA) was measured in decimal units and was converted to the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) units for the statistical analyses. Each UWF image was split into red and green channels using ImageJ software (ImageJ, V.2.0.0-rc-69/1.52i; NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA) (), and the usual images (red and green channels) and red channel images were used for the current analysis. The identification of “ischemic” or “non-ischemic” was performed using FA by two independent investigators who were unaware of the clinical data (A.S. and T.I.). A consensus between the investigators was reached in all the cases. Rubeotic CRVO was diagnosed when the neovascularization of the iris or angle was observed in the enrolled eyes.

Representative image in CRVO.

Representative ultra-widefield images of ischemic CRVO. Color fundus image (A) and red channel image (B) were used for the analysis. CRVO: Central retinal vein occlusion.

Classification by ophthalmology residents

Both image types were evaluated by 6 resident investigators (S.I., K.N., K.O., R.A., K.N. and Y.T.) who had no knowledge of any clinical data and were asked to predict the presence or absence of ischemia. These predictions were first performed using conventional images (red and green channels). Subsequently, a similar procedure was performed using the red channel images; the order of the analyzed eyes was randomized for each investigator. These predictions were then compared with the ischemic/non-ischemic diagnosis obtained using FA. The predictions were regarded as correct when they matched the true diagnosis.

Statistical analysis

The Wilcoxon rank sum test was conducted to compare age, logMAR VA and follow-up duration between the ischemic and non-ischemic CRVO. The sensitivity and specificity for the detection of ischemic status by six resident investigators were calculated for Group A (total 42 CRVO eyes), Group B (32 eyes excluding non-rubeotic ischemic CRVO) and Group C (31 eyes excluding rubeotic ischemic CRVO), respectively. Sensitivity and specificity are usually in a balanced relation, and comparing either one alone is not recommended. Hence, a linear mixed model was conducted to investigate the relationship between the types of images (red and green channels or red channel) and the accuracy of prediction (correct or incorrect) in each of Groups A, B and C. All statistical analyses were performed using the statistical programming language R (ver. 3.4.3, The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

Results

Forty-two eyes of 42 patients with CRVO were enrolled in total. The demographic data is shown in . Based on the FA results, 21 eyes were diagnosed as ischemic CRVO and 21 eyes were diagnosed as non-ischemic cases. Rubeosis was found in 11 ischemic CRVO eyes. The mean age of the participants was 67.3 years (standard deviation [SD], 13.0 years). The mean logMAR visual acuity (VA) was 0.82±0.69. A significant difference in logMAR VA was seen between the ischemic and non-ischemic groups (p = 0.00031, Wilcoxon rank sum test). A significant difference in age was also observed between the two groups (p = 0.038). The follow-up duration did not differ significantly between the two groups (p = 0.67).

shows the sensitivity and specificity of 6 resident investigators for the detection of the ischemic status in all 42 CRVO eyes (Group A), in 32 eyes excluding non-rubeotic ischemic eyes (Group B), and in 31 eyes excluding rubeotic ischemic CRVO eyes (Group C). In Group A, the sensitivity and specificity were 69.1%±16.2% and 88.9%±11.5% for the color fundus images and 71.4%±18.8% and 94.5%±7.6% for the red channel images, respectively. No significant differences in sensitivity and specificity were observed between the two imaging modalities (p = 0.99, p = 0.38, respectively, Wilcoxon rank sum test). In Group B, the sensitivity was 71.2%±18.5% for the color fundus images and 63.6%±19.9% for the red channel images. No significant difference in sensitivities was seen between the two imaging modalities in Group B (p = 0.59). In Group C, the sensitivity was 66.7%±16.3% for the color fundus images and 80.0%±17.9% for the red channel images, with no significant difference observed between the two imaging modalities (p = 0.25).

No significant difference in sensitivity was seen between Group A and Group B when the color fundus images were used (p = 0.84). By contrast, a significant difference in sensitivity was seen between Group A and Group B when the red channel images were used (p = 0.031, Wilcoxon signed rank test). A significant difference in sensitivity was also seen between Group A and Group C when the red channel images were used (p = 0.031); on the other hand, no significant difference was seen between the two groups when the color fundus images were used (p = 0.84, ).

No significant correlation was seen between the types of images and the accuracy of predictions (correct/incorrect) in Group A (p = 0.26, linear mixed model). The accuracies of the predictions were not associated with the type of images in either ischemic or non-ischemic eyes (p = 0.10, p = 0.67, respectively). Similarly, a significant correlation was not observed in Group B (p = 0.34). On the other hand, a significant correlation was observed between the types of images and the accuracy of predictions in Group C (p = 0.026, linear mixed model).

Discussion

In the present study, we investigated the usefulness of red channel images in eyes with CRVO using UWF fundus photographs. As a result, the ability of ophthalmology residents to predict the ischemic status was significantly improved when red channel images were used.

Alhamami and colleagues reported that red channel imaging provides more information about damage to deep retinal layers in patients with diabetic retinopathy [10]. Our current results were consistent with these previous findings, supporting the idea that red channel imaging is useful for detecting changes in the perfusion status of the deep retinal layer. In clinical settings, non-ischemic CRVO eyes sometimes convert to ischemic CRVO during the follow-up period. Indeed, one-third of non-ischemic CRVO cases reportedly converted to ischemic CRVO during the course of a 3-year follow-up [1], further supporting the merits of the currently proposed approach. Moreover, fluorescein angiography requires intravenous dye injection and it might lead to adverse effects, although serious allergy is actually quite rare [11,12]. Thus, the ability to predict the presence of ischemic changes non-invasively using only UWF red channel imaging would be beneficial.

OCTA is another non-invasive means of observing the ischemic status in RVO. Seknazi et al. reported a significant correlation between peripheral non-perfusion measured using FA and macular vessel density in both deep and superficial capillary plexuses measured using OCTA [13]. Also, Fukutomi et al. suggested that sequential observations using OCTA measurements were useful for detecting conversion from a non-ischemic to an ischemic status in CRVO [14]. Of note, a study using OCTA showed that macular perfusion was primarily affected in the deep retinal layer in patients with CRVO [15]. Thus, in a future study, it would be interesting to compare the usefulness of UWF red channel imaging and OCTA when evaluating the ischemic status in eyes with CRVO. However, not all real-world facilities are equipped with OCTA. Furthermore, UWF red channel imaging can be used to perform direct observations of retinal hemorrhages in the deep retinal layer not only in the macular area, but also in peripheral region, unlike OCTA.

In the current study, as shown in Table 2, the specificity in 4 of 6 resident investigators increased when using red channel images. On the other hand, one resident investigator with the best sensitivity showed a decreased specificity (Table 2). Furthermore, the sensitivity of resident investigators has an enormous range in the present study. This variation may have resulted in no significant differences in the sensitivity and specificity between two imaging modalities in Group A, B and C. On the other hand, an improvement was observed in the accuracy of diagnosing the ischemic status using red channel imaging in CRVO eyes without rubeosis (Group C), while this was not the case when all the enrolled CRVO eyes were analyzed together (Group A). In eyes with rubeosis, identification of the ischemic status may be relatively straightforward, even using conventional color fundus images. In contrast, the merit of using red color channel image became prominent when rubeosis was not detected by the resident investigators. In other words, detecting the ischemic status in eyes without rubeosis was more challenging, and red color channel imaging was a useful approach in such cases. Supporting this hypothesis, as shown in Table 2, the sensitivity of red channel images was significantly higher in Group C than in Group A.

Table 2

Sensitivity and specificity of two imaging modalities for detecting the ischemic status in patients with CRVO.

	Color fundus image				Red channel image
Resident investigator	Sensitivity in Group A	Sensitivity in Group B	Sensitivity in Group C	Specificity	Sensitivity in Group A	Sensitivity in Group B	Sensitivity in Group C	Specificity
1	90.5	100	80	90.5	95.2	90.9	100	81.0
2	85.7	81.8	90	66.7	81.0	72.7	90	90.5
3	47.6	45.5	50	95.2	71.4	63.6	80	100
4	61.9	63.6	60	90.5	81.0	72.7	90	95.2
5	61.9	72.7	50	100	57.1	45.5	70	100
6	66.7	63.6	70	90.5	42.9	36.4	50	100

The sensitivities of the two imaging modalities were calculated in Group A (total 42 CRVO), Group B (32 eyes: Excluding non-rubeotic ischemic CRVO) and Group C (31 eyes: Excluding rubeotic ischemic CRVO). Specificity was also calculated for the two imaging modalities.

The current study had some limitations. Firstly, this study was retrospective and cross-sectional in nature, and the number of subjects was relatively small. It would be of a particular interest to validate the usefulness of the current approach for detecting conversion from a non-ischemic to ischemic status in longitudinal observations of the same eyes. Secondly, our current analysis using red channel imaging was qualitative, not quantitative. Clarifying the relationship between the non-perfusion area and the area of hemorrhage using red channel imaging in CRVO eyes would be interesting.

In conclusion, UWF red channel imaging enabled the accurate detection of the ischemic status, especially in non-rubeotic ischemic CRVO eyes, even when performed by residents.

Sato CRVO final.

(CSV)

Click here for additional data file.

24 Sep 2021

PONE-D-21-19313Using ultra-widefield red channel images to improve the detection of ischemic central retinal vein occlusionPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tatsuya Inoue,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by October 23. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alon Harris

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: There is a great discrepancy between the results and the interpretation.

Specificity increased at 5 of the 6 reviewers, but interestingly the specificity decreased at the reviewer with the best sensitivity.

The sensitivity of the various reviewers has an enormous range from 45 to 90. The sensitivity decreased in 3 of the 6 reviewers.

All these facts were not discussed and referred to.

You can not just put everything in one pot and masking and ignore the details.

Reviewer #2: This is a well-designed and well written article. The authors do a good job of clearly explaining why using red channel imaging can be helpful to determine ischemic vs non ischemic status in eyes with CRVO (especially if no rubeosis present).

Can the authors explain in further detail why Groups B and C still included the non-ischemic eyes instead of just analyzing ischemic eyes (with and without rubeosis) separately?

It is unclear how much the findings in this paper would change management of ischemic CVRO. Do the authors think PRP or anti-VEGF therapy is warranted earlier in these ischemic CRVO patients as opposed to waiting for rubeosis ?

Page 15, line 228:

I would tone down the language a bit in this sentence, as “serious” FA induced allergy is actually quite rare (1/3800 for bronchospasm, 1/5300 for cardiovascular events, 1/220k for death). Skin reactions such as urticaria occur in 1.2% of patients but that seems to be a minor adverse event.

https://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(18)30586-4/fulltext

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

6 Oct 2021

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Dear Prof. Alon Harris,

We appreciate you and the reviewers for the constructive and insightful comments. Please find our enclosed point-by-point responses (in red) to the reviewers’ comments. We hope that this revision will meet your expectations, and that our revised manuscript will better suit for publication on PLOS ONE.

Reviewer #1: There is a great discrepancy between the results and the interpretation.

Specificity increased at 5 of the 6 reviewers, but interestingly the specificity decreased at the reviewer with the best sensitivity.

The sensitivity of the various reviewers has an enormous range from 45 to 90. The sensitivity decreased in 3 of the 6 reviewers.

All these facts were not discussed and referred to. You can not just put everything in one pot and masking and ignore the details.

Thank you for the suggestion. As the Reviewer pointed out, the result of sensitivity and specificity of 6 resident investigators was not discussed in detail, therefore we have revised our manuscript as follows.

Our result suggests that no significant differences in the sensitivity and the specificity were observed between two imaging modalities in Group A, B and C. This might be due to the data variation and we added the description in the revised manuscript.

“In the current study, as shown in Table2, the specificity in 4 of 6 resident investigators increased when using red channel images. On the other hand, one resident investigator with the best sensitivity showed a decreased specificity (Table 2). Furthermore, the sensitivity of resident investigators has an enormous range in the present study. This variation may have resulted in no significant differences in the sensitivity and specificity between two imaging modalities in Group A, B and C. On the other hand, an improvement was observed in the accuracy of diagnosing the ischemic status using red channel imaging in CRVO eyes without rubeosis (Group C), while this was not the case when all the enrolled CRVO eyes were analyzed together (Group A).”

Reviewer #2: This is a well-designed and well written article. The authors do a good job of clearly explaining why using red channel imaging can be helpful to determine ischemic vs non ischemic status in eyes with CRVO (especially if no rubeosis present).

Can the authors explain in further detail why Groups B and C still included the non-ischemic eyes instead of just analyzing ischemic eyes (with and without rubeosis) separately?

Thank you for the comment and we are sorry for the confusion.

In the current study, we first compared the sensitivity and specificity associated with two types of images between ischemic (rubeotic + non-rubeotic) and non-ischemic CRVO eyes using Group A. However, no significant improvement in sensitivity and specificity when using red channel images was seen in Group A and no significant correlation was observed between the types of images (color or red channel image) and the accuracy of predictions. Therefore, we next divided ischemic group into rubeotic and non-rubeotic groups and statistical analyses were performed using Group B (non-ischemic + rubeotic) and Group C (non-ischemic + non-rubeotic). As a result, a significant correlation was observed between the types of images and the accuracy of predictions in Group C (p=0.026, linear mixed model).

The reason why the improvement of prediction was seen only in Group C still remains unclear, however it is possible that the existence of rubeosis may have made the color fundus image sufficient to discriminate ischemic status in CRVO eyes. On the other hand, red channel image might be useful to detect the ischemic status in eyes without rubeosis, compared to color fundus image.

It is unclear how much the findings in this paper would change management of ischemic CVRO. Do the authors think PRP or anti-VEGF therapy is warranted earlier in these ischemic CRVO patients as opposed to waiting for rubeosis ?

Thank you for the insightful comment. As mentioned in the Discussion, one-third of non-ischemic CRVO eyes have been reported to convert to ischemic CRVO during the 3-year’s follow-up. On the other hand, it is clinically often experienced that it is difficult to detect the ischemic eyes without a delay, because fluorescein angiography cannot be performed in all cases. The current results imply that it is clinically relevant to examine the ischemic status using the red channel image, not only the conventional colour images, so that eyes needing the fluorescein angiography is detected more accurately. .

Page 15, line 228:

I would tone down the language a bit in this sentence, as “serious” FA induced allergy is actually quite rare (1/3800 for bronchospasm, 1/5300 for cardiovascular events, 1/220k for death). Skin reactions such as urticaria occur in 1.2% of patients but that seems to be a minor adverse event.

https://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(18)30586-4/fulltext

Thank you for the comment. According to the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have toned down the sentence.

Submitted filename: Comment to PLos One.docx

Click here for additional data file.

9 Nov 2021

Using ultra-widefield red channel images to improve the detection of ischemic central retinal vein occlusion

PONE-D-21-19313R1

Dear Dr. Tatsuya Inoue,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Alon Harris

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The authors have sufficiently addressed my concerns from the original review. I recommend acceptance without modification.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Rehan M Hussain

15 Nov 2021

PONE-D-21-19313R1

Using ultra-widefield red channel images to improve the detection of ischemic central retinal vein occlusion

Dear Dr. Inoue:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Alon Harris

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Table 1

Subject demographics.

	Total	Ischemic	Non-ischemic	P value
Number of eyes	42	21	21	-
Age (years)	67.3±13.0	71.4±10.3	63.2±14.3	0.038
Male/Female	22/20	11/10	11/10
LogMAR VA	0.82±0.69	1.21±0.73	0.42±0.34	0.00031
Follow-up duration (days)	34.3±27.0	35.0±25.6	33.6±29.0	0.67

Data are presented as the mean ± SD.

logMAR: Logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution, VA: Visual acuity.