-
Comparative Study
Optic disc imaging with spectral-domain optical coherence tomography: variability and agreement study with Heidelberg retinal tomograph.
- Bingzhi Yang, Cong Ye, Marco Yu, Shu Liu, Dennis Shun Chiu Lam, and Christopher Kai-shun Leung.
- Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, PR China.
- Ophthalmology. 2012 Sep 1;119(9):1852-7.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the agreement of optic disc measurements obtained with the Cirrus high-density optical coherence tomography (HD-OCT) and the Heidelberg retina tomograph (HRT) and compare the intervisit, test-retest variability between the instruments.DesignProspective, cross-sectional study.ParticipantsTwo hundred seven subjects (109 glaucoma and 98 normal subjects).MethodsOne eye from each individual was selected randomly for optic disc imaging by the Cirrus HD-OCT and the HRT. Areas of the optic disc and the cup, cup volume, vertical cup-to-disc ratio and cup-to-disc area ratio were compared between the instruments. The OCT measurements were corrected for ocular magnification using the Littman's formula. The measurement agreement was evaluated with the Bland-Altman plots. The intervisit test-retest variability was examined in 17 randomly selected glaucoma patients who underwent optic disc imaging weekly for 8 consecutive weeks. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and the reproducibility coefficients of the optic disc parameters were computed.Main Outcome MeasuresMeasurement agreement, reproducibility coefficients, and ICCs of optic disc parameters.ResultsThe OCT measured smaller optic disc and rim areas and greater cup volume, vertical cup-to-disc ratio and cup-to-disc area ratio than the HRT did (all with P<0.001). There were proportional biases in the Bland-Altman plots between OCT and HRT optic disc measurements except for rim area and cup-to-disc area ratio. The 95% limits of agreement of rim area ranged between -0.28 and 0.88 mm(2) before, and between -0.22 and 0.92 mm(2) after correction for ocular magnification. Both OCT and HRT showed high test-retest reproducibility with ICCs ≥ 0.921. Although the reproducibility coefficient of OCT rim area (0.093 mm(2); 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.081-0.105 mm(2)) was significantly smaller than that of the HRT (0.186 mm(2); 95% CI, 0.163-0.210 mm(2); P = .018), there were no differences in the ICCs between the instruments.ConclusionsOptic disc assessment by spectral-domain OCT and confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy demonstrates poor agreement but similarly low test-retest variability. The source of their disagreement and its effects on the detection of progression require further study.Copyright © 2012 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.