BACKGROUND/AIMS: To evaluate spectral-domain (SD) optical coherence tomography (OCT) reproducibility and assess the agreement between SD-OCT and Time-Domain (TD) OCT retinal nerve fibre layer (RNFL) measurements. METHODS: Three Cirrus-SD-OCT scans and one Stratus-TD-OCT scan were obtained from Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma Study (DIGS) healthy participants and glaucoma patients on the same day. Repeatability was evaluated using Sw (within-subject standard deviation), CV (coefficient of variation) and ICC (intraclass correlation coefficient). Agreement was assessed using correlation and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: 16 healthy participants (32 eyes) and 39 patients (78 eyes) were included. SD-OCT reproducibility was excellent in both groups. The CV and ICC for Average RNFL thickness were 1.5% and 0.96, respectively, in healthy eyes and 1.6% and 0.98, respectively, in patient eyes. Correlations between RNFL parameters were strong, particularly for average RNFL thickness (R(2) = 0.92 in patient eyes). Bland-Altman plots showed good agreement between instruments, with better agreement for average RNFL thickness than for sectoral RNFL parameters (for example, at 90 microm average RNFL thickness, 95% limits of agreement were -13.1 to 0.9 for healthy eyes and -16.2 to -0.3 microm for patient eyes). CONCLUSIONS: SD-OCT measurements were highly repeatable in healthy and patient eyes. Although the agreement between instruments was good, TD-OCT provided thicker RNFL measurements than SD-OCT. Measurements with these instruments should not be considered interchangeable.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: To evaluate spectral-domain (SD) optical coherence tomography (OCT) reproducibility and assess the agreement between SD-OCT and Time-Domain (TD) OCT retinal nerve fibre layer (RNFL) measurements. METHODS: Three Cirrus-SD-OCT scans and one Stratus-TD-OCT scan were obtained from Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma Study (DIGS) healthy participants and glaucomapatients on the same day. Repeatability was evaluated using Sw (within-subject standard deviation), CV (coefficient of variation) and ICC (intraclass correlation coefficient). Agreement was assessed using correlation and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: 16 healthy participants (32 eyes) and 39 patients (78 eyes) were included. SD-OCT reproducibility was excellent in both groups. The CV and ICC for Average RNFL thickness were 1.5% and 0.96, respectively, in healthy eyes and 1.6% and 0.98, respectively, in patient eyes. Correlations between RNFL parameters were strong, particularly for average RNFL thickness (R(2) = 0.92 in patient eyes). Bland-Altman plots showed good agreement between instruments, with better agreement for average RNFL thickness than for sectoral RNFL parameters (for example, at 90 microm average RNFL thickness, 95% limits of agreement were -13.1 to 0.9 for healthy eyes and -16.2 to -0.3 microm for patient eyes). CONCLUSIONS:SD-OCT measurements were highly repeatable in healthy and patient eyes. Although the agreement between instruments was good, TD-OCT provided thicker RNFL measurements than SD-OCT. Measurements with these instruments should not be considered interchangeable.
Authors: Johannes F de Boer; Barry Cense; B Hyle Park; Mark C Pierce; Guillermo J Tearney; Brett E Bouma Journal: Opt Lett Date: 2003-11-01 Impact factor: 3.776
Authors: Lelia A Paunescu; Joel S Schuman; Lori Lyn Price; Paul C Stark; Siobahn Beaton; Hiroshi Ishikawa; Gadi Wollstein; James G Fujimoto Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Nader Nassif; Barry Cense; B Hyle Park; Seok H Yun; Teresa C Chen; Brett E Bouma; Guillermo J Tearney; Johannes F de Boer Journal: Opt Lett Date: 2004-03-01 Impact factor: 3.776
Authors: Pauline H B Kok; Hille W van Dijk; Thomas J T P van den Berg; Frank D Verbraak Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2008-09-04 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: D Huang; E A Swanson; C P Lin; J S Schuman; W G Stinson; W Chang; M R Hee; T Flotte; K Gregory; C A Puliafito Journal: Science Date: 1991-11-22 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: J S Schuman; T Pedut-Kloizman; E Hertzmark; M R Hee; J R Wilkins; J G Coker; C A Puliafito; J G Fujimoto; E A Swanson Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 1996-11 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Kyung Rim Sung; Jong S Kim; Gadi Wollstein; Lindsey Folio; Michael S Kook; Joel S Schuman Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Nancy M Buchser; Gadi Wollstein; Hiroshi Ishikawa; Richard A Bilonick; Yun Ling; Lindsey S Folio; Larry Kagemann; Robert J Noecker; Eiyass Albeiruti; Joel S Schuman Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2012-06-20 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Madhusudhanan Balasubramanian; Christopher Bowd; Gianmarco Vizzeri; Robert N Weinreb; Linda M Zangwill Journal: Opt Express Date: 2009-03-02 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Chieh-Li Chen; Hiroshi Ishikawa; Yun Ling; Gadi Wollstein; Richard A Bilonick; Juan Xu; James G Fujimoto; Ian A Sigal; Larry Kagemann; Joel S Schuman Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2013-11-05 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Jong S Kim; Hiroshi Ishikawa; Michelle L Gabriele; Gadi Wollstein; Richard A Bilonick; Larry Kagemann; James G Fujimoto; Joel S Schuman Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2009-09-08 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Alexander A Shpak; Maria K Sevostyanova; Svetlana N Ogorodnikova; Irina N Shormaz Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2011-09-01 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Byron L Lam; William J Feuer; Joyce C Schiffman; Vittorio Porciatti; Ruth Vandenbroucke; Potyra R Rosa; Giovanni Gregori; John Guy Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2014-04-01 Impact factor: 7.389