B Parkin1, G Shuttleworth, M Costen, C Davison. 1. Southampton Eye Unit, Southampton General Hospital, Tremona Road, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK. benparkin@hotmail.com
Abstract
AIMS: To compare stereophotographic and monophotographic optic disc assessments made using a digital optic disc stereo camera. METHODS: Stereo digital optic disc photographs of 150 selected patients who had presented to a glaucoma clinic were assessed by two masked observers on separate occasions using (1) the stereophotographs and a stereoviewer, (2) a single image from the same stereopair. Results were analysed for both right and left eyes separately. 95% tolerance limits for change (TC) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated and a multivariate analysis using a general linear model for repeated measures was performed. RESULTS:A total of 201 optic disc images of 150 patients (84 females, 108 left eyes) were analysed. Mean age of patients was 64 years. The results for right eyes are as follows (similar results were obtained for left eyes). Intraobserver (stereoscopic compared to monoscopic) measurements of: horizontal cup:disc ratios (CDR), ICC = 0.5995 and 0.7269, TC = 34% and 27%; vertical CDR, ICC = 0.8298 and 0.817, TC = 25% and 27%; area CDR, ICC = 0.7757 and 0.8259, TC = 28% and 25%; circumference CDR, ICC = 0.7618 and 0.8103, TC = 28% and 25%. Interobserver measurements of: horizontal CDR, ICC stereoscopic (SS) = 0.7287; monoscopic (MS) = 0.5030; TC SS = 30%; MS = 32%; vertical CDR, ICC SS = 0.8439; MS = 0.7106; TC SS = 25%; MS = 31%; area CDR, ICC SS = 0.8392; MS = 0.6276; TC SS = 26%; MS = 32%; circumference CDR, ICC SS = 0.8433; MS = 0.6438, TC SS = 26%; MS = 31%. Systematic bias between observers and between methods was within acceptable limits. CONCLUSIONS: This study using a digital stereo camera indicates that there may be little benefit of stereoscopic imaging over monoscopic imaging despite demonstrating small but inconsistent differences between both observers and methods.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: To compare stereophotographic and monophotographic optic disc assessments made using a digital optic disc stereo camera. METHODS: Stereo digital optic disc photographs of 150 selected patients who had presented to a glaucoma clinic were assessed by two masked observers on separate occasions using (1) the stereophotographs and a stereoviewer, (2) a single image from the same stereopair. Results were analysed for both right and left eyes separately. 95% tolerance limits for change (TC) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated and a multivariate analysis using a general linear model for repeated measures was performed. RESULTS: A total of 201 optic disc images of 150 patients (84 females, 108 left eyes) were analysed. Mean age of patients was 64 years. The results for right eyes are as follows (similar results were obtained for left eyes). Intraobserver (stereoscopic compared to monoscopic) measurements of: horizontal cup:disc ratios (CDR), ICC = 0.5995 and 0.7269, TC = 34% and 27%; vertical CDR, ICC = 0.8298 and 0.817, TC = 25% and 27%; area CDR, ICC = 0.7757 and 0.8259, TC = 28% and 25%; circumference CDR, ICC = 0.7618 and 0.8103, TC = 28% and 25%. Interobserver measurements of: horizontal CDR, ICC stereoscopic (SS) = 0.7287; monoscopic (MS) = 0.5030; TC SS = 30%; MS = 32%; vertical CDR, ICC SS = 0.8439; MS = 0.7106; TC SS = 25%; MS = 31%; area CDR, ICC SS = 0.8392; MS = 0.6276; TC SS = 26%; MS = 32%; circumference CDR, ICC SS = 0.8433; MS = 0.6438, TC SS = 26%; MS = 31%. Systematic bias between observers and between methods was within acceptable limits. CONCLUSIONS: This study using a digital stereo camera indicates that there may be little benefit of stereoscopic imaging over monoscopic imaging despite demonstrating small but inconsistent differences between both observers and methods.
Authors: P G Spry; I C Spencer; J M Sparrow; T J Peters; S T Brookes; S Gray; I Baker; J E Furber; D L Easty Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 1999-06 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: J C Mwanza; D S Grover; D L Budenz; L W Herndon; W Nolan; J Whiteside-de Vos; G Hay-Smith; J R Bandi; K A Bhansali; L A Forbes; W J Feuer; K Barton Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2017-04-07 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Michael D Abràmoff; Wallace L M Alward; Emily C Greenlee; Lesya Shuba; Chan Y Kim; John H Fingert; Young H Kwon Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Tilman Kühn; Sabine Rohrmann; Nena Karavasiloglou; David S Friedman; Aedin Cassidy; Till Bärnighausen; Alexander K Schuster; Stefan Nickels Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-06-03 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Maged S Habib; James A Lowell; Nick S Holliman; Andrew Hunter; Daniella Vaideanu; Anthony Hildreth; David Hw Steel Journal: BMC Ophthalmol Date: 2008-07-23 Impact factor: 2.209
Authors: Viquar U Begum; Ganesh B Jonnadula; Ravi K Yadav; Uday K Addepalli; Sirisha Senthil; Nikhil S Choudhari; Chandra S Garudadri; Harsha L Rao Journal: Indian J Ophthalmol Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 1.848