Vivian S Vuong1, Elad Moisseiev2, David Cunefare3, Sina Farsiu3, Ala Moshiri2, Glenn Yiu4. 1. Department of Ophthalmology & Vision Science, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, California; School of Medicine, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, California. 2. Department of Ophthalmology & Vision Science, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, California. 3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 4. Department of Ophthalmology & Vision Science, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, California. Electronic address: gyiu@ucdavis.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the reliability of manual choroidal thickness measurements by comparing different posterior boundary definitions of the choroidal-scleral junction on enhanced depth imaging optical coherence tomography (EDI-OCT). DESIGN: Reliability analysis. METHODS: Two graders marked the choroidal-scleral junction with segmentation software using different posterior boundaries: (1) the outer border of the choroidal vessel lumen, (2) the outer border of the choroid stroma, and (3) the inner border of the sclera, to measure the vascular choroidal thickness (VCT), stromal choroidal thickness (SCT), and total choroidal thickness (TCT), respectively. Measurements were taken at 0.5-mm intervals from 1.5 mm nasal to 1.5 mm temporal to the fovea, and averaged continuously across the central 3 mm of the macula. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of reliability (CR) were compared to assess intergrader and intragrader reliability. RESULTS: Choroidal thickness measurements varied significantly with different posterior boundaries (P < .001 for all). Intergrader ICCs were greater for SCT (0.959-0.980) than for TCT (0.928-0.963) and VCT (0.750-0.869), even in eyes where choroidal-scleral junction visibility was <75%. Intergrader CRs were lower for SCT (41.40-62.31) than for TCT (61.13-74.24) or VCT (72.44-115.11). ICCs and CRs showed greater reliability for averaged VCT, SCT, or TCT measurements than at individual locations. Intragrader ICCs and CRs were comparable to intergrader values. CONCLUSIONS: Choroidal thickness measurements are more reproducible when measured to the border of the choroid stroma (SCT) than the vascular lumen (VCT) or sclera (TCT).
PURPOSE: To assess the reliability of manual choroidal thickness measurements by comparing different posterior boundary definitions of the choroidal-scleral junction on enhanced depth imaging optical coherence tomography (EDI-OCT). DESIGN: Reliability analysis. METHODS: Two graders marked the choroidal-scleral junction with segmentation software using different posterior boundaries: (1) the outer border of the choroidal vessel lumen, (2) the outer border of the choroid stroma, and (3) the inner border of the sclera, to measure the vascular choroidal thickness (VCT), stromal choroidal thickness (SCT), and total choroidal thickness (TCT), respectively. Measurements were taken at 0.5-mm intervals from 1.5 mm nasal to 1.5 mm temporal to the fovea, and averaged continuously across the central 3 mm of the macula. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of reliability (CR) were compared to assess intergrader and intragrader reliability. RESULTS: Choroidal thickness measurements varied significantly with different posterior boundaries (P < .001 for all). Intergrader ICCs were greater for SCT (0.959-0.980) than for TCT (0.928-0.963) and VCT (0.750-0.869), even in eyes where choroidal-scleral junction visibility was <75%. Intergrader CRs were lower for SCT (41.40-62.31) than for TCT (61.13-74.24) or VCT (72.44-115.11). ICCs and CRs showed greater reliability for averaged VCT, SCT, or TCT measurements than at individual locations. Intragrader ICCs and CRs were comparable to intergrader values. CONCLUSIONS: Choroidal thickness measurements are more reproducible when measured to the border of the choroid stroma (SCT) than the vascular lumen (VCT) or sclera (TCT).
Authors: Takamitsu Fujiwara; Yutaka Imamura; Ron Margolis; Jason S Slakter; Richard F Spaide Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2009-07-09 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Ana-Maria Philip; Bianca S Gerendas; Li Zhang; Henrik Faatz; Dominika Podkowinski; Hrvoje Bogunovic; Michael D Abramoff; Michael Hagmann; Roland Leitner; Christian Simader; Milan Sonka; Sebastian M Waldstein; Ursula Schmidt-Erfurth Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2016-01-14 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Sharmila Vaz; Torbjörn Falkmer; Anne Elizabeth Passmore; Richard Parsons; Pantelis Andreou Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-09-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Hao Zhou; Yining Dai; Yingying Shi; Jonathan F Russell; Cancan Lyu; Jila Noorikolouri; William J Feuer; Zhongdi Chu; Qinqin Zhang; Luis de Sisternes; Mary K Durbin; Giovanni Gregori; Philip J Rosenfeld; Ruikang K Wang Journal: Ophthalmol Retina Date: 2019-10-01
Authors: Glenn Yiu; Zhe Wang; Christian Munevar; Eric Tieu; Bradley Shibata; Brittany Wong; David Cunefare; Sina Farsiu; Jeffrey Roberts; Sara M Thomasy Journal: Exp Eye Res Date: 2018-01-17 Impact factor: 3.467
Authors: Tiziano Ronchetti; Christoph Jud; Peter M Maloca; Selim Orgül; Alina T Giger; Christoph Meier; Hendrik P N Scholl; Rachel Ka Man Chun; Quan Liu; Chi-Ho To; Boris Považay; Philippe C Cattin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-06-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Alex S Willoughby; Vivian S Vuong; David Cunefare; Sina Farsiu; Glenn Noronha; Ronald P Danis; Glenn Yiu Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2017-12-02 Impact factor: 5.258