AIM: To evaluate the reproducibility of the background fundus autofluorescence measurements obtained using a confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope. METHODS: 10 normal volunteers and 10 patients with retinal disease were included in the study. One eye per subject was chosen randomly. Five images of the same eye of each individual were obtained, after pupillary dilatation, by two investigators using a confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope. Background fundus autofluorescence was measured at 7 degrees temporal to the fovea in normal volunteers and between 7 and 15 degrees temporal to the fovea in patients. Within session reproducibility of the measurements obtained by each investigator and interobserver reproducibility were evaluated. RESULTS: For investigator 1 the median values of fundus autofluorescence obtained were 31.9 units for normal volunteers and 27.3 units for patients. The median largest differences in readings in normal volunteers was 5.7 units (range 1.4-13.5 units) and in patients 4.2 units (1.5-15.1 units). For investigator 2 the median values of fundus autofluorescence obtained were 28.9 units for normal volunteers and 27.4 units for patients. The median largest difference in readings in normal volunteers was 3.6 units (2.7-11.7 units), and in patients 4.1 units (1.5-9.3 units). The median interobserver difference in readings in normal volunteers was 3.3 units and for patients 6.6 units. The median greatest interobserver difference in measurements obtained for normal volunteers was 8.8 units (8.4-23.0 units) and for patients 11.1 units (7.1-40.8 units). CONCLUSION: Within session reproducibility of the measurements of background fundus autofluorescence was satisfactory. Although interobserver reproducibility was moderate, the variability of the measurements of fundus autofluorescence between observers appears to be small when compared with variation in fundus autofluorescence with age and disease.
AIM: To evaluate the reproducibility of the background fundus autofluorescence measurements obtained using a confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope. METHODS: 10 normal volunteers and 10 patients with retinal disease were included in the study. One eye per subject was chosen randomly. Five images of the same eye of each individual were obtained, after pupillary dilatation, by two investigators using a confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope. Background fundus autofluorescence was measured at 7 degrees temporal to the fovea in normal volunteers and between 7 and 15 degrees temporal to the fovea in patients. Within session reproducibility of the measurements obtained by each investigator and interobserver reproducibility were evaluated. RESULTS: For investigator 1 the median values of fundus autofluorescence obtained were 31.9 units for normal volunteers and 27.3 units for patients. The median largest differences in readings in normal volunteers was 5.7 units (range 1.4-13.5 units) and in patients 4.2 units (1.5-15.1 units). For investigator 2 the median values of fundus autofluorescence obtained were 28.9 units for normal volunteers and 27.4 units for patients. The median largest difference in readings in normal volunteers was 3.6 units (2.7-11.7 units), and in patients 4.1 units (1.5-9.3 units). The median interobserver difference in readings in normal volunteers was 3.3 units and for patients 6.6 units. The median greatest interobserver difference in measurements obtained for normal volunteers was 8.8 units (8.4-23.0 units) and for patients 11.1 units (7.1-40.8 units). CONCLUSION: Within session reproducibility of the measurements of background fundus autofluorescence was satisfactory. Although interobserver reproducibility was moderate, the variability of the measurements of fundus autofluorescence between observers appears to be small when compared with variation in fundus autofluorescence with age and disease.
Authors: François Delori; Jonathan P Greenberg; Russell L Woods; Jörg Fischer; Tobias Duncker; Janet Sparrow; R Theodore Smith Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-12-09 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Robert Laemmer; Folkert K Horn; Arne Viestenz; Barbara Link; Anselm G Juenemann; Christian Y Mardin Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2006-08-01 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Janet R Sparrow; Tobias Duncker; Kaspar Schuerch; Maarjaliis Paavo; Jose Ronaldo Lima de Carvalho Journal: Prog Retin Eye Res Date: 2019-08-28 Impact factor: 21.198
Authors: Wilma Einbock; Andreas Moessner; Ute E K Schnurrbusch; Frank G Holz; Sebastian Wolf Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2004-10-13 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Kaweh Mansouri; Jonathan D Tung; Felipe A Medeiros; Ali Tafreshi; Syril Dorairaj; Linda Zangwill; Feng He; Sonia Jain; Robert N Weinreb Journal: Acta Ophthalmol Date: 2013-03-18 Impact factor: 3.761