PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of signal strength and improper scan alignment on retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness measurement variability. DESIGN: Retrospective, longitudinal clinical study. METHODS: All eyes of healthy subjects with at least 2 fast RNFL scan sessions were selected from the Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma Study. The chronological first scan was considered to be the baseline. Absolute differences in signal strength and RNFL thickness measurements between baseline and subsequent scans were calculated. Regression analysis was conducted to assess whether signal strength and scan shifts along the horizontal (nasal-temporal) but not the vertical (superior-inferior) axis affect average RNFL thickness measurements. RESULTS: Ninety-four eyes of 94 subjects were included. All eyes were tested twice or more on the same visit, whereas 30 eyes were followed up longitudinally for 32.4 +/- 13.3 months (1 scan per annual follow-up). For quadrants, absolute differences from baseline were greater than for average RNFL thickness and were significantly larger for scans acquired on separate visits. Average RNFL thickness increased only when the difference between the nasal and temporal quadrants increased (R2 = 0.16; P < .0001), suggesting it may be affected by horizontal but not vertical scan shifts. Differences in signal strength were associated with differences in average RNFL thickness (R2 = 0.19; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Even under optimal testing conditions, scan quality can adversely effect the ability to detect change over time. Therefore, caution is warranted when detecting glaucomatous progression using scan series of different quality. Careful overall assessment of quadrants and average RNFL thickness measurements is suggested to help identify scan misalignment.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of signal strength and improper scan alignment on retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness measurement variability. DESIGN: Retrospective, longitudinal clinical study. METHODS: All eyes of healthy subjects with at least 2 fast RNFL scan sessions were selected from the Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma Study. The chronological first scan was considered to be the baseline. Absolute differences in signal strength and RNFL thickness measurements between baseline and subsequent scans were calculated. Regression analysis was conducted to assess whether signal strength and scan shifts along the horizontal (nasal-temporal) but not the vertical (superior-inferior) axis affect average RNFL thickness measurements. RESULTS: Ninety-four eyes of 94 subjects were included. All eyes were tested twice or more on the same visit, whereas 30 eyes were followed up longitudinally for 32.4 +/- 13.3 months (1 scan per annual follow-up). For quadrants, absolute differences from baseline were greater than for average RNFL thickness and were significantly larger for scans acquired on separate visits. Average RNFL thickness increased only when the difference between the nasal and temporal quadrants increased (R2 = 0.16; P < .0001), suggesting it may be affected by horizontal but not vertical scan shifts. Differences in signal strength were associated with differences in average RNFL thickness (R2 = 0.19; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Even under optimal testing conditions, scan quality can adversely effect the ability to detect change over time. Therefore, caution is warranted when detecting glaucomatous progression using scan series of different quality. Careful overall assessment of quadrants and average RNFL thickness measurements is suggested to help identify scan misalignment.
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: 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: Felipe A Medeiros; Linda M Zangwill; Christopher Bowd; Roberto M Vessani; Remo Susanna; Robert N Weinreb Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: J S Schuman; M R Hee; C A Puliafito; C Wong; T Pedut-Kloizman; C P Lin; E Hertzmark; J A Izatt; E A Swanson; J G Fujimoto Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 1995-05
Authors: Gadi Wollstein; Joel S Schuman; Lori L Price; Ali Aydin; Paul C Stark; Ellen Hertzmark; Edward Lai; Hiroshi Ishikawa; Cynthia Mattox; James G Fujimoto; Lelia A Paunescu Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2005-04
Authors: Donald L Budenz; Robert T Chang; Xiangrun Huang; Robert W Knighton; James M Tielsch Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Patricia I C Manalastas; Linda M Zangwill; Fabio B Daga; Mark A Christopher; Luke J Saunders; Takuhei Shoji; Tadamichi Akagi; Rafaella C Penteado; Adeleh Yarmohammadi; Min H Suh; Felipe A Medeiros; Robert N Weinreb Journal: J Glaucoma Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Takuhei Shoji; Linda M Zangwill; Tadamichi Akagi; Luke J Saunders; Adeleh Yarmohammadi; Patricia Isabel C Manalastas; Rafaella C Penteado; Robert N Weinreb Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Renato Lisboa; Augusto Paranhos; Robert N Weinreb; Linda M Zangwill; Mauro T Leite; Felipe A Medeiros Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2013-05-13 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Ziad Khoueir; Firas Jassim; Linda Yi-Chieh Poon; Edem Tsikata; Geulah S Ben-David; Yingna Liu; Eric Shieh; Ramon Lee; Rong Guo; Georgia Papadogeorgou; Boy Braaf; Huseyin Simavli; Christian Que; Benjamin J Vakoc; Brett E Bouma; Johannes F de Boer; Teresa C Chen Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2017-08-12 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Jithin Yohannan; Michael Cheng; Joseph Da; Sagar Chapagain; Ayodeji Sotimehin; Luke W Bonham; Aleksandra Mihailovic; Michael Boland; Pradeep Ramulu Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2019-08-29 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Nimesh B Patel; Mimi Lim; Avni Gajjar; Kelsey B Evans; Ronald S Harwerth Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-07-22 Impact factor: 4.799