PURPOSE: Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is a reliable method used to quantify discrete layers of the retina. Spectralis OCT is a device used for this purpose. Spectralis OCT macular scan imaging acquisition can be obtained on either the horizontal or vertical plane. The vertical protocol has been proposed as favorable, due to postulated reduction in confound of Henle's fibers on segmentation-derived metrics. Yet, agreement of the segmentation measures of horizontal and vertical macular scans remains unexplored. Our aim was to determine this agreement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Horizontal and vertical macular scans on Spectralis OCT were acquired in 20 healthy controls (HCs) and 20 multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. All scans were segmented using Heidelberg software and a Johns Hopkins University (JHU)-developed method. Agreement was analyzed using Bland-Altman analyses and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs). RESULTS: Using both segmentation techniques, mean differences (agreement at the cohort level) in the thicknesses of all macular layers derived from both acquisition protocols in MS patients and HCs were narrow (<1 µm), while the limits of agreement (LOA) (agreement at the individual level) were wider. Using JHU segmentation mean differences (and LOA) for the macular retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) and ganglion cell layer + inner plexiform layer (GCIP) in MS were 0.21 µm (-1.57-1.99 µm) and -0.36 µm (-1.44-1.37 µm), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: OCT segmentation measures of discrete retinal-layer thicknesses derived from both vertical and horizontal protocols on Spectralis OCT agree excellently at the cohort level (narrow mean differences), but only moderately at the individual level (wide LOA). This suggests patients scanned using either protocol should continue to be scanned with the same protocol. However, due to excellent agreement at the cohort level, measures derived from both acquisitions can be pooled for outcome purposes in clinical trials.
PURPOSE: Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is a reliable method used to quantify discrete layers of the retina. Spectralis OCT is a device used for this purpose. Spectralis OCT macular scan imaging acquisition can be obtained on either the horizontal or vertical plane. The vertical protocol has been proposed as favorable, due to postulated reduction in confound of Henle's fibers on segmentation-derived metrics. Yet, agreement of the segmentation measures of horizontal and vertical macular scans remains unexplored. Our aim was to determine this agreement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Horizontal and vertical macular scans on Spectralis OCT were acquired in 20 healthy controls (HCs) and 20 multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. All scans were segmented using Heidelberg software and a Johns Hopkins University (JHU)-developed method. Agreement was analyzed using Bland-Altman analyses and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs). RESULTS: Using both segmentation techniques, mean differences (agreement at the cohort level) in the thicknesses of all macular layers derived from both acquisition protocols in MSpatients and HCs were narrow (<1 µm), while the limits of agreement (LOA) (agreement at the individual level) were wider. Using JHU segmentation mean differences (and LOA) for the macular retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) and ganglion cell layer + inner plexiform layer (GCIP) in MS were 0.21 µm (-1.57-1.99 µm) and -0.36 µm (-1.44-1.37 µm), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: OCT segmentation measures of discrete retinal-layer thicknesses derived from both vertical and horizontal protocols on Spectralis OCT agree excellently at the cohort level (narrow mean differences), but only moderately at the individual level (wide LOA). This suggests patients scanned using either protocol should continue to be scanned with the same protocol. However, due to excellent agreement at the cohort level, measures derived from both acquisitions can be pooled for outcome purposes in clinical trials.
Authors: Stephanie B Syc; Christina V Warner; Girish S Hiremath; Sheena K Farrell; John N Ratchford; Amy Conger; Teresa Frohman; Gary Cutter; Laura J Balcer; Elliot M Frohman; Peter A Calabresi Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2010-06-08 Impact factor: 6.312
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: Shiv Saidha; Stephanie B Syc; Mary K Durbin; Christopher Eckstein; Jonathan D Oakley; Scott A Meyer; Amy Conger; Teresa C Frohman; Scott Newsome; John N Ratchford; Elliot M Frohman; Peter A Calabresi Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2011-08-24 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Joseph Ho; Alan C Sull; Laurel N Vuong; Yueli Chen; Jonathan Liu; James G Fujimoto; Joel S Schuman; Jay S Duker Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2009-07-09 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Ute E K Wolf-Schnurrbusch; Lala Ceklic; Christian K Brinkmann; Milko E Iliev; Manuel Frey; Simon P Rothenbuehler; Volker Enzmann; Sebastian Wolf Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2009-02-21 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Stephanie J Chiu; Xiao T Li; Peter Nicholas; Cynthia A Toth; Joseph A Izatt; Sina Farsiu Journal: Opt Express Date: 2010-08-30 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Chris H Polman; Stephen C Reingold; Brenda Banwell; Michel Clanet; Jeffrey A Cohen; Massimo Filippi; Kazuo Fujihara; Eva Havrdova; Michael Hutchinson; Ludwig Kappos; Fred D Lublin; Xavier Montalban; Paul O'Connor; Magnhild Sandberg-Wollheim; Alan J Thompson; Emmanuelle Waubant; Brian Weinshenker; Jerry S Wolinsky Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: James Nguyen; Alissa Rothman; Natalia Gonzalez; Ama Avornu; Esther Ogbuokiri; Laura J Balcer; Steven L Galetta; Elliot M Frohman; Teresa Frohman; Ciprian Crainiceanu; Peter A Calabresi; Shiv Saidha Journal: J Neuroophthalmol Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 3.042
Authors: Olwen C Murphy; Ohemaa Kwakyi; Mustafa Iftikhar; Sidra Zafar; Jeffrey Lambe; Nicole Pellegrini; Elias S Sotirchos; Natalia Gonzalez-Caldito; Esther Ogbuokiri; Angeliki Filippatou; Hunter Risher; Norah Cowley; Sydney Feldman; Nicholas Fioravante; Elliot M Frohman; Teresa C Frohman; Laura J Balcer; Jerry L Prince; Roomasa Channa; Peter A Calabresi; Shiv Saidha Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2019-05-16 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Olwen C Murphy; Grigorios Kalaitzidis; Eleni Vasileiou; Angeliki G Filippatou; Jeffrey Lambe; Henrik Ehrhardt; Nicole Pellegrini; Elias S Sotirchos; Nicholas J Luciano; Yihao Liu; Kathryn C Fitzgerald; Jerry L Prince; Peter A Calabresi; Shiv Saidha Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2020-12-15 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Alexander U Brandt; Frederike Cosima Oertel; Angelo Lu; Hanna G Zimmermann; Svenja Specovius; Seyedamirhosein Motamedi; Claudia Chien; Charlotte Bereuter; Marco A Lana-Peixoto; Mariana Andrade Fontenelle; Fereshteh Ashtari; Rahele Kafieh; Alireza Dehghani; Mohsen Pourazizi; Lekha Pandit; Anitha D'Cunha; Ho Jin Kim; Jae-Won Hyun; Su-Kyung Jung; Letizia Leocani; Marco Pisa; Marta Radaelli; Sasitorn Siritho; Eugene F May; Caryl Tongco; Jérôme De Sèze; Thomas Senger; Jacqueline Palace; Adriana Roca-Fernández; Maria Isabel Leite; Srilakshmi M Sharma; Hadas Stiebel-Kalish; Nasrin Asgari; Kerstin Kathrine Soelberg; Elena H Martinez-Lapiscina; Joachim Havla; Yang Mao-Draayer; Zoe Rimler; Allyson Reid; Romain Marignier; Alvaro Cobo-Calvo; Ayse Altintas; Uygur Tanriverdi; Rengin Yildirim; Orhan Aktas; Marius Ringelstein; Philipp Albrecht; Ivan Maynart Tavares; Denis Bernardi Bichuetti; Anu Jacob; Saif Huda; Ibis Soto de Castillo; Axel Petzold; Ari J Green; Michael R Yeaman; Terry J Smith; Lawrence Cook; Friedemann Paul Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2021-10-28 Impact factor: 13.654