OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a new automated analysis of optic disc images obtained by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD OCT). Areas of the optic disc, cup, and neural rim in SD OCT images were compared with these areas from stereoscopic photographs to represent the current traditional optic nerve evaluation. The repeatability of measurements by each method was determined and compared. DESIGN: Evaluation of diagnostic technology. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred nineteen healthy eyes, 23 eyes with glaucoma, and 7 glaucoma suspect eyes. METHODS: Optic disc and cup margins were traced from stereoscopic photographs by 3 individuals independently. Optic disc margins and rim widths were determined automatically in SD OCT. A subset of photographs was examined and traced a second time, and duplicate SD OCT images also were analyzed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Agreement among photograph readers, between duplicate readings, and between SD OCT and photographs were quantified by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), by the root mean square, and by the standard deviation of the differences. RESULTS: Optic disc areas tended to be slightly larger when judged in photographs than by SD OCT, whereas cup areas were similar. Cup and optic disc areas showed good correlation (0.8) between the average photographic reading and SD OCT, but only fair correlation of rim areas (0.4). The SD OCT was highly reproducible (ICC, 0.96-0.99). Each reader also was consistent with himself on duplicate readings of 21 photographs (ICC, 0.80-0.88 for rim area and 0.95-0.98 for all other measurements), but reproducibility was not as good as SD OCT. Measurements derived from SD OCT did not differ from photographic readings more than the readings of photographs by different readers differed from each other. CONCLUSIONS: Designation of the cup and optic disc boundaries by an automated analysis of SD OCT was within the range of variable designations by different readers from color stereoscopic photographs, but use of different landmarks typically made the designation of the optic disc size somewhat smaller in the automated analysis. There was better repeatability among measurements from SD OCT than from among readers of photographs. The repeatability of automated measurement of SD OCT images is promising for use both in diagnosis and in monitoring of progression.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a new automated analysis of optic disc images obtained by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD OCT). Areas of the optic disc, cup, and neural rim in SD OCT images were compared with these areas from stereoscopic photographs to represent the current traditional optic nerve evaluation. The repeatability of measurements by each method was determined and compared. DESIGN: Evaluation of diagnostic technology. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred nineteen healthy eyes, 23 eyes with glaucoma, and 7 glaucoma suspect eyes. METHODS: Optic disc and cup margins were traced from stereoscopic photographs by 3 individuals independently. Optic disc margins and rim widths were determined automatically in SD OCT. A subset of photographs was examined and traced a second time, and duplicate SD OCT images also were analyzed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Agreement among photograph readers, between duplicate readings, and between SD OCT and photographs were quantified by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), by the root mean square, and by the standard deviation of the differences. RESULTS: Optic disc areas tended to be slightly larger when judged in photographs than by SD OCT, whereas cup areas were similar. Cup and optic disc areas showed good correlation (0.8) between the average photographic reading and SD OCT, but only fair correlation of rim areas (0.4). The SD OCT was highly reproducible (ICC, 0.96-0.99). Each reader also was consistent with himself on duplicate readings of 21 photographs (ICC, 0.80-0.88 for rim area and 0.95-0.98 for all other measurements), but reproducibility was not as good as SD OCT. Measurements derived from SD OCT did not differ from photographic readings more than the readings of photographs by different readers differed from each other. CONCLUSIONS: Designation of the cup and optic disc boundaries by an automated analysis of SD OCT was within the range of variable designations by different readers from color stereoscopic photographs, but use of different landmarks typically made the designation of the optic disc size somewhat smaller in the automated analysis. There was better repeatability among measurements from SD OCT than from among readers of photographs. The repeatability of automated measurement of SD OCT images is promising for use both in diagnosis and in monitoring of progression.
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: Michael D Abràmoff; Kyungmoo Lee; Meindert Niemeijer; Wallace L M Alward; Emily C Greenlee; Mona K Garvin; Milan Sonka; Young H Kwon Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2009-07-15 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Nicholas G Strouthidis; Hongli Yang; Brad Fortune; J Crawford Downs; Claude F Burgoyne Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2008-08-08 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Chameen Samarawickrama; Amy Pai; Son C Huynh; George Burlutsky; Jost B Jonas; Paul Mitchell Journal: J Glaucoma Date: 2009 Oct-Nov Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Young H Kwon; Michael Adix; M Bridget Zimmerman; Scott Piette; Emily C Greenlee; Wallace L M Alward; Michael D Abràmoff Journal: J Glaucoma Date: 2009 Apr-May Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Nicolaas J Reus; Hans G Lemij; David F Garway-Heath; P Juhani Airaksinen; Alfonso Anton; Alain M Bron; Christoph Faschinger; Gábor Holló; Michele Iester; Jost B Jonas; Andrea Mistlberger; Fotis Topouzis; Thierry G Zeyen Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2010-01-04 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Alexandre S C Reis; Neil O'Leary; Hongli Yang; Glen P Sharpe; Marcelo T Nicolela; Claude F Burgoyne; Balwantray C Chauhan Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2012-04-18 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Andrew W Browne; Waseem Ansari; Ming Hu; Kimberly Baynes; Careen Y Lowder; Justis P Ehlers; Sunil K Srivastava Journal: J Vitreoretin Dis Date: 2020-02-11
Authors: Kaweh Mansouri; John H K Liu; Ali Tafreshi; Felipe A Medeiros; Robert N Weinreb Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2012-07-19 Impact factor: 5.258