PURPOSE: To evaluate intra-device reproducibility of retinal nerve fibre layer (RNFL) measurements obtained using Stratus and Spectralis optical coherence tomography, and to analyze inter-device correlation and agreement for these measurements. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. METHODS: A total of 30 normal individuals participated in the study. One eye of each participant was scanned three times during one session by the same operator using Spectralis and Stratus. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs), correlation coefficients (R), and Bland-Altman plots (BAPs) were used to assess reproducibility, correlation, and agreement between the two devices, respectively. RESULTS: A significant difference in mean RNFL thickness was seen between Stratus and Spectralis (106.2 ± 6.9 μm vs 100.0 ± 7.3 μm, P = 0.0001). ICCs of RNFL thickness measurements ranged from 0.69 (clock hour 2; 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.54, 0.85) to 0.91 (inferior quadrant; 95% CI: 0.86, 0.96) for Stratus and were higher for Spectralis, ranging from 0.87 (temporal-superior sector; 95% CI: 0.79, 0.94) to 0.96 (global and nasal-inferior sector; 95% CI: 0.94, 0.99). Rs of RNFL thickness measurements between the two instruments ranged from 0.61 (temporal quadrant) to 0.87 (superior quadrant). BAPs demonstrated a systematic difference in RNFL values between the two devices, with Spectralis producing thinner RNFL values than Stratus. CONCLUSIONS: Spectralis demonstrated higher ICCs and thinner RNFL measurements than Stratus. Although the inter-device correlation was good, differences in RNFL measurements obtained by the two devices indicate that these measurements would not be interchangeable in clinical evaluations.
PURPOSE: To evaluate intra-device reproducibility of retinal nerve fibre layer (RNFL) measurements obtained using Stratus and Spectralis optical coherence tomography, and to analyze inter-device correlation and agreement for these measurements. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. METHODS: A total of 30 normal individuals participated in the study. One eye of each participant was scanned three times during one session by the same operator using Spectralis and Stratus. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs), correlation coefficients (R), and Bland-Altman plots (BAPs) were used to assess reproducibility, correlation, and agreement between the two devices, respectively. RESULTS: A significant difference in mean RNFL thickness was seen between Stratus and Spectralis (106.2 ± 6.9 μm vs 100.0 ± 7.3 μm, P = 0.0001). ICCs of RNFL thickness measurements ranged from 0.69 (clock hour 2; 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.54, 0.85) to 0.91 (inferior quadrant; 95% CI: 0.86, 0.96) for Stratus and were higher for Spectralis, ranging from 0.87 (temporal-superior sector; 95% CI: 0.79, 0.94) to 0.96 (global and nasal-inferior sector; 95% CI: 0.94, 0.99). Rs of RNFL thickness measurements between the two instruments ranged from 0.61 (temporal quadrant) to 0.87 (superior quadrant). BAPs demonstrated a systematic difference in RNFL values between the two devices, with Spectralis producing thinner RNFL values than Stratus. CONCLUSIONS: Spectralis demonstrated higher ICCs and thinner RNFL measurements than Stratus. Although the inter-device correlation was good, differences in RNFL measurements obtained by the two devices indicate that these measurements would not be interchangeable in clinical evaluations.
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: Rupert R A Bourne; Felipe A Medeiros; Christopher Bowd; Keyvan Jahanbakhsh; Linda M Zangwill; Robert N Weinreb Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Ute E K Wolf-Schnurrbusch; Lala Ceklic; Christian K Brinkmann; Milko E Iliev; Manuel Frey; Simon P Rothenbuehler; Volker Enzmann; Sebastian Wolf Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2009-02-21 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Alberto O González-García; Gianmarco Vizzeri; Christopher Bowd; Felipe A Medeiros; Linda M Zangwill; Robert N Weinreb Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2009-03-09 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: G Vizzeri; R N Weinreb; A O Gonzalez-Garcia; C Bowd; F A Medeiros; P A Sample; L M Zangwill Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2009-03-19 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Tuomas Heikka; Giovanni Ometto; Giovanni Montesano; Scott Rowe; Nomdo M Jansonius; David P Crabb Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2020-02-07 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Atsuya Miki; Felipe A Medeiros; Robert N Weinreb; Sonia Jain; Feng He; Lucie Sharpsten; Naira Khachatryan; Na'ama Hammel; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Christopher A Girkin; Pamela A Sample; Linda M Zangwill Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2014-03-13 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Christina V Warner; Stephanie B Syc; Aleksandra M Stankiewicz; Girish Hiremath; Sheena K Farrell; Ciprian M Crainiceanu; Amy Conger; Teresa C Frohman; Esther R Bisker; Laura J Balcer; Elliot M Frohman; Peter A Calabresi; Shiv Saidha Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-08-11 Impact factor: 3.240