Helen H L Chan1, Dai Ni Ong2, Yu Xiang G Kong2, Evelyn C O'Neill3, Surinder S Pandav4, Michael A Coote2, Jonathan G Crowston2. 1. Centre for Eye Research Australia, University of Melbourne, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Electronic address: helen.chan@eyeandear.org.au. 2. Centre for Eye Research Australia, University of Melbourne, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 3. Centre for Eye Research Australia, University of Melbourne, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Ophthalmology Department, Mater Misericordiae Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. 4. Advanced Eye Center, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh, India.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether monoscopic vs stereoscopic viewing impacts evaluation of optic disc photographs for glaucoma diagnosis in an expert population. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. METHODS: Twenty pairs of high-quality monoscopic and stereoscopic photographs of similar size and magnification (ie, 40 images), were selected to demonstrate a range of optic disc features from a total of 197 eyes of 197 patients with glaucoma and normal subjects recruited from a tertiary clinic. These were presented in randomized order via an interactive platform (http://stereo.gone-project.com/). Participants assessed 9 topographic features and estimated glaucoma likelihood for each photograph. Main outcome measures were intra- and inter-observer agreement. RESULTS: There was good intra-observer agreement between monoscopic and stereoscopic assessments of glaucoma likelihood (κw = 0.56). There was also good to substantial agreement for peripapillary atrophy (κw = 0.65), cup shape (κw = 0.65), retinal nerve fiber layer loss (κw = 0.69), vertical cup-to-disc ratio (κw = 0.58), and disc shape (κw = 0.57). However, intra-observer agreement was only fair to moderate for disc tilt, cup depth, and disc size (κw = 0.46-0.49). Inter-observer agreement for glaucoma likelihood in monoscopic photographs (κw = 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.55-0.67) was substantial and not lower than in stereoscopic photographs (κw = 0.59, CI = 0.54-0.65). Monoscopic photographs did not lead to lower levels of inter-observer agreement compared to stereoscopic photographs in the assessment of any optic disc characteristics, for example disc size (mono κw = 0.65, stereo κw = 0.52) and cup-to-disc ratio (mono κw = 0.72, stereo κw = 0.62). CONCLUSIONS: For expert observers in the evaluation of optic disc photographs for glaucoma likelihood, monoscopic optic disc photographs did not appear to represent a significant disadvantage compared to stereoscopic photographs.
PURPOSE: To determine whether monoscopic vs stereoscopic viewing impacts evaluation of optic disc photographs for glaucoma diagnosis in an expert population. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. METHODS: Twenty pairs of high-quality monoscopic and stereoscopic photographs of similar size and magnification (ie, 40 images), were selected to demonstrate a range of optic disc features from a total of 197 eyes of 197 patients with glaucoma and normal subjects recruited from a tertiary clinic. These were presented in randomized order via an interactive platform (http://stereo.gone-project.com/). Participants assessed 9 topographic features and estimated glaucoma likelihood for each photograph. Main outcome measures were intra- and inter-observer agreement. RESULTS: There was good intra-observer agreement between monoscopic and stereoscopic assessments of glaucoma likelihood (κw = 0.56). There was also good to substantial agreement for peripapillary atrophy (κw = 0.65), cup shape (κw = 0.65), retinal nerve fiber layer loss (κw = 0.69), vertical cup-to-disc ratio (κw = 0.58), and disc shape (κw = 0.57). However, intra-observer agreement was only fair to moderate for disc tilt, cup depth, and disc size (κw = 0.46-0.49). Inter-observer agreement for glaucoma likelihood in monoscopic photographs (κw = 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.55-0.67) was substantial and not lower than in stereoscopic photographs (κw = 0.59, CI = 0.54-0.65). Monoscopic photographs did not lead to lower levels of inter-observer agreement compared to stereoscopic photographs in the assessment of any optic disc characteristics, for example disc size (mono κw = 0.65, stereo κw = 0.52) and cup-to-disc ratio (mono κw = 0.72, stereo κw = 0.62). CONCLUSIONS: For expert observers in the evaluation of optic disc photographs for glaucoma likelihood, monoscopic optic disc photographs did not appear to represent a significant disadvantage compared to stereoscopic photographs.
Authors: Sarah E Miller; Suman Thapa; Alan L Robin; Leslie M Niziol; Pradeep Y Ramulu; Maria A Woodward; Indira Paudyal; Ian Pitha; Tyson N Kim; Paula Anne Newman-Casey Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2017-07-19 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Thomas W Rogers; Nicolas Jaccard; Francis Carbonaro; Hans G Lemij; Koenraad A Vermeer; Nicolaas J Reus; Sameer Trikha Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2019-07-02 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Linda Yi-Chieh Poon; David Solá-Del Valle; Angela V Turalba; Iryna A Falkenstein; Michael Horsley; Julie H Kim; Brian J Song; Hana L Takusagawa; Kaidi Wang; Teresa C Chen Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2017-09-23 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Seung Woo Hong; Helen Koenigsman; Ruojin Ren; Hongli Yang; Stuart K Gardiner; Juan Reynaud; Robert M Kinast; Steven L Mansberger; Brad Fortune; Shaban Demirel; Claude F Burgoyne Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2018-05-09 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Alessandro A Jammal; Atalie C Thompson; Eduardo B Mariottoni; Samuel I Berchuck; Carla N Urata; Tais Estrela; Susan M Wakil; Vital P Costa; Felipe A Medeiros Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2019-11-12 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Andrew Bastawrous; Mario Ettore Giardini; Nigel M Bolster; Tunde Peto; Nisha Shah; Iain A T Livingstone; Helen A Weiss; Sen Hu; Hillary Rono; Hannah Kuper; Matthew Burton Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 7.389