PURPOSE: To detect differences in retinal thickness among patients of different race, gender, and age using Stratus OCT. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: In a multicenter, university-based study, 126 patients with no history of ocular disease were enrolled (78 diabetics without retinopathy and 48 nondiabetics). Optical coherence tomography measurements were performed using Stratus OCT. Statistical comparisons of center point foveal thickness and mean foveal thickness were made using generalized estimating equations adjusting for diabetic status, race, age, and gender. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 36% male subjects, 39% Caucasian, 33% African-American, and 28% Hispanic. Mean foveal thickness was 191.6 +/- 2.7 microm and 194.5 +/- 2.7 microm for diabetics and nondiabetics, respectively (P = .49). Mean foveal thickness in male subjects was significantly larger than in female (201.8 +/- 2.7 microm and 186.9 +/- 2.6 microm, respectively; P < .001). Mean foveal thickness was 200.2 +/- 2.7 microm for Caucasian, 181.0 +/- 3.7 microm for African-American, and 194.7 +/- 3.9 microm for Hispanic subjects. Mean foveal thickness was significantly less for African-American than Caucasian (P < .0001) or Hispanic subjects (P = .005). Center point foveal thickness and mean foveal thickness showed a significant increase with age. CONCLUSIONS: There are statistically significant differences in retinal thickness between subjects of different race, gender, and age. When compared to Caucasian and Hispanic subjects, African-American race is a predictor of decreased mean foveal thickness; and male sex (regardless of race) is a significant predictor of increased mean foveal thickness. Mean foveal thickness is similar among diabetics and nondiabetics when data are controlled for age, race, and sex. These results suggest that studies comparing OCT measurements should carefully control for age-based, race-based, and gender-based variations in retinal thickness. (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: To detect differences in retinal thickness among patients of different race, gender, and age using Stratus OCT. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: In a multicenter, university-based study, 126 patients with no history of ocular disease were enrolled (78 diabetics without retinopathy and 48 nondiabetics). Optical coherence tomography measurements were performed using Stratus OCT. Statistical comparisons of center point foveal thickness and mean foveal thickness were made using generalized estimating equations adjusting for diabetic status, race, age, and gender. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 36% male subjects, 39% Caucasian, 33% African-American, and 28% Hispanic. Mean foveal thickness was 191.6 +/- 2.7 microm and 194.5 +/- 2.7 microm for diabetics and nondiabetics, respectively (P = .49). Mean foveal thickness in male subjects was significantly larger than in female (201.8 +/- 2.7 microm and 186.9 +/- 2.6 microm, respectively; P < .001). Mean foveal thickness was 200.2 +/- 2.7 microm for Caucasian, 181.0 +/- 3.7 microm for African-American, and 194.7 +/- 3.9 microm for Hispanic subjects. Mean foveal thickness was significantly less for African-American than Caucasian (P < .0001) or Hispanic subjects (P = .005). Center point foveal thickness and mean foveal thickness showed a significant increase with age. CONCLUSIONS: There are statistically significant differences in retinal thickness between subjects of different race, gender, and age. When compared to Caucasian and Hispanic subjects, African-American race is a predictor of decreased mean foveal thickness; and male sex (regardless of race) is a significant predictor of increased mean foveal thickness. Mean foveal thickness is similar among diabetics and nondiabetics when data are controlled for age, race, and sex. These results suggest that studies comparing OCT measurements should carefully control for age-based, race-based, and gender-based variations in retinal thickness. (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
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: Carine Biallosterski; Mirjam E J van Velthoven; Robert P J Michels; Reinier O Schlingemann; J Hans DeVries; Frank D Verbraak Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2007-03-23 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Srinivas R Sadda; Ziqiang Wu; Alexander C Walsh; Len Richine; Jessica Dougall; Richard Cortez; Laurie D LaBree Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2006-01-10 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Neil M Bressler; Allison R Edwards; Andrew N Antoszyk; Roy W Beck; David J Browning; Antonio P Ciardella; Ronald P Danis; Michael J Elman; Scott M Friedman; Adam R Glassman; Jeffrey G Gross; Helen K Li; Timothy J Murtha; Thomas W Stone; Jennifer K Sun Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2008-02-21 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Basanta Bhaduri; Ryan L Shelton; Ryan M Nolan; Lucas Hendren; Alexandra Almasov; Leanne T Labriola; Stephen A Boppart Journal: J Biophotonics Date: 2017-06-21 Impact factor: 3.207
Authors: Nazli Demirkaya; Hille W van Dijk; Sanne M van Schuppen; Michael D Abràmoff; Mona K Garvin; Milan Sonka; Reinier O Schlingemann; Frank D Verbraak Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2013-07-22 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Alexander Pinhas; Moataz Razeen; Michael Dubow; Alexander Gan; Toco Y Chui; Nishit Shah; Mitul Mehta; Ronald C Gentile; Rishard Weitz; Joseph B Walsh; Yusufu N Sulai; Joseph Carroll; Alfredo Dubra; Richard B Rosen Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-11-20 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: C Ellis Wisely; Javed A Sayed; Heather Tamez; Chris Zelinka; Mohamed H Abdel-Rahman; Andy J Fischer; Colleen M Cebulla Journal: Prog Retin Eye Res Date: 2017-06-28 Impact factor: 21.198
Authors: Christopher Bowd; Linda M Zangwill; Robert N Weinreb; Christopher A Girkin; Massimo A Fazio; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Akram Belghith Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2018-09-07 Impact factor: 5.258