| Literature DB >> 25904293 |
M Stehouwer1, F D Verbraak2,3, R O Schlingemann2, T G van Leeuwen3.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose is to evaluate the interdevice and interobserver agreements between the SL SCAN-1 (a FD-OCT integrated into a common slit lamp) and a standard stand-alone FD-OCT device (the Cirrus) with regard to the presence or absence of signs of leakage in the retina in patients with exudative AMD and treated with anti-VEGF.Entities:
Keywords: Age-related macular degeneration; Exudative retinal disease; Integrated SD-OCT into a slit lamp; Optical coherence tomography; SL SCAN-1
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25904293 PMCID: PMC4700072 DOI: 10.1007/s00417-015-2997-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol ISSN: 0721-832X Impact factor: 3.117
Fig. 1Both OCT scans (left Cirrus, right SL SCAN-1), made in the same eye of a patient, are of sufficient quality for grading (Cirrus SS > 6, SL SCAN-1 QF > 60)
Interdevice agreement
| Kappa coefficient | 95 % CI | |
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| IRC | 0.80 | 0.72–0.88 |
| SRF | 0.89 | 0.83–0.95 |
| NRT | 0.76 | 0.68–0.88 |
* Presence of signs of leakage based on the presence of one or more of the following signs: intraretinal cysts (IRC), subretinal fluid (SRF), or neurosensory retina thickening (NRT)
Kappa coefficient is an average of the interdevice kappa coefficient of each observer
Fig. 2Percentage agreement between devices; percentage of OCT scans receiving identical conclusions of the observers per sign and per patient. For example: in 84 % both observers concluded identically for the presence or absence of signs of leakage based on scans of both devices, and in 7.3 %, both observers differed in their judgment of presence or absence of signs of leakage, but each observer graded the OCT scan on both devices to be equal
Fig. 3Comparison between the devices of discordant OCT scans, favouring positive findings, meaning the presence of a certain sign. Absolute number of disagreements in observations between the devices, favouring the positive findings per device. This includes all the OCT scans of the patients graded differently on the two devices, not related to the observer. For example: presence or absence of signs of leakage: both observers concluded that in one patient signs of leakage were present on the OCT scan made with the Cirrus and not on the scans made with the SL SCAN-1 (black). In four patients (grey), only one of the observers differed in his grading between scans made with the two devices (in two patients, signs of leakage was seen only on the SL SCAN-1, and in another two patients only on the Cirrus)
Interobserver agreement
| Kappa coefficient | 95 % CI | |
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| IRC | 0.76 | 0.70–0.83 |
| SRF | 0.84 | 0.79–0.90 |
| NRT | 0.67 | 0.60–0.75 |
* Presence of signs of leakage based on the presence of one or more of the following signs: intraretinal cysts (IRC), subretinal fluid (SRF), or neurosensory retina thickening (NRT)
Kappa coefficient is an average of the interobserver kappa coefficient of each device