Haeng-Jin Lee1, Min-Su Kim1, Young-Joon Jo2, Jung-Yeul Kim3. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Chungnam National University College of Medicine, Daejeon, South Korea. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Chungnam National University College of Medicine, Daejeon, South Korea; Research Institute for Medical Science, Chungnam National University College of Medicine, Daejeon, South Korea. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Chungnam National University College of Medicine, Daejeon, South Korea; Research Institute for Medical Science, Chungnam National University College of Medicine, Daejeon, South Korea. Electronic address: kimjy@cnu.ac.kr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To analyze the repeatability of measuring the thickness of the ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography by auto-segmentation in various retinal diseases. DESIGN: Test-retest reliability analysis. METHODS: A total of 180 patients who visited our clinic between April and December 2013 were included. An experienced examiner obtained 2 consecutive measurements from a macular cube 512 × 128 scan. The patients were divided into 3 groups according to central macular thickness. Repeatability was determined by comparing the average, minimum, and 6 sectoral ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer thickness values among groups. RESULTS: Data from 165 of the 180 patients were included in the analysis. Measurement errors occurred in 3 patients (6%) in the macular atrophy group and 12 (20%) in the edema group. The measurement repeatability for ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer thickness was high in the normal eye group (average intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.994; coefficient of variation [COV], 0.7%; and test-retest variability, 1.1 μm), relatively low in the macular edema group (average ICC, 0.845; COV, 18.7%; and test-retest variability, 27.8 μm), and lowest in the macular atrophy group (ICC, 0.610; COV, 30.4%; and test-retest variability, 29.2 μm) compared to the normal eye group. CONCLUSIONS: The repeatability of ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer thickness measurements was lower in the macular edema and atrophy groups. The impact of changes in macular shape caused by various retinal diseases should be taken into consideration when measuring ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer thickness in other diseases such as glaucoma and neuro-ophthalmology.
PURPOSE: To analyze the repeatability of measuring the thickness of the ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography by auto-segmentation in various retinal diseases. DESIGN: Test-retest reliability analysis. METHODS: A total of 180 patients who visited our clinic between April and December 2013 were included. An experienced examiner obtained 2 consecutive measurements from a macular cube 512 × 128 scan. The patients were divided into 3 groups according to central macular thickness. Repeatability was determined by comparing the average, minimum, and 6 sectoral ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer thickness values among groups. RESULTS: Data from 165 of the 180 patients were included in the analysis. Measurement errors occurred in 3 patients (6%) in the macular atrophy group and 12 (20%) in the edema group. The measurement repeatability for ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer thickness was high in the normal eye group (average intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.994; coefficient of variation [COV], 0.7%; and test-retest variability, 1.1 μm), relatively low in the macular edema group (average ICC, 0.845; COV, 18.7%; and test-retest variability, 27.8 μm), and lowest in the macular atrophy group (ICC, 0.610; COV, 30.4%; and test-retest variability, 29.2 μm) compared to the normal eye group. CONCLUSIONS: The repeatability of ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer thickness measurements was lower in the macular edema and atrophy groups. The impact of changes in macular shape caused by various retinal diseases should be taken into consideration when measuring ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer thickness in other diseases such as glaucoma and neuro-ophthalmology.
Authors: Luis de Sisternes; Gowtham Jonna; Jason Moss; Michael F Marmor; Theodore Leng; Daniel L Rubin Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2017-02-28 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Ilkay Kilic Muftuoglu; Hema L Ramkumar; Dirk-Uwe Bartsch; Amit Meshi; Raouf Gaber; William R Freeman Journal: Retina Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Elisa Mischi; Petr Soukup; Christine D Harman; Kazuya Oikawa; Malwina E Kowalska; Sonja Hartnack; Gillian J McLellan; András M Komáromy; Simon A Pot Journal: Vet Ophthalmol Date: 2022-05-25 Impact factor: 1.444
Authors: Hema L Ramkumar; Brian Nguyen; Dirk-Uwe Bartsch; Luke J Saunders; Ilkay Kilic Muftuoglu; Qisheng You; William R Freeman Journal: Retina Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Maria A Parker; Dongseok Choi; Laura R Erker; Mark E Pennesi; Paul Yang; Elvira N Chegarnov; Peter N Steinkamp; Catherine L Schlechter; Claire-Marie Dhaenens; Saddek Mohand-Said; Isabelle Audo; Jose Sahel; Richard G Weleber; David J Wilson Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2016-10-01 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Leandro B C Teixeira; James N Ver Hoeve; Joshua A Mayer; Richard R Dubielzig; Chelsey M Smith; Abigail B Radcliff; Ian D Duncan Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2016-09-01 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Edwin Hong-Teck Loh; Yi-Ting Ong; Narayanaswamy Venketasubramanian; Saima Hilal; Naing Thet; Tien Yin Wong; Christopher P L Chen; Carol Yim-Lui Cheung Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2017-08-15 Impact factor: 4.003