Seung Woo Hong1, Helen Koenigsman2, Ruojin Ren2, Hongli Yang2, Stuart K Gardiner3, Juan Reynaud4, Robert M Kinast5, Steven L Mansberger6, Brad Fortune3, Shaban Demirel3, Claude F Burgoyne7. 1. Optic Nerve Head Research Laboratory, Devers Eye Institute, Legacy Research Institute, Portland, Oregon, USA; Department of Ophthalmology, Medical College, Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea. 2. Optic Nerve Head Research Laboratory, Devers Eye Institute, Legacy Research Institute, Portland, Oregon, USA. 3. Discoveries in Sight Research Laboratories, Devers Eye Institute, Legacy Research Institute, Portland, Oregon, USA. 4. Optic Nerve Head Research Laboratory, Devers Eye Institute, Legacy Research Institute, Portland, Oregon, USA; Discoveries in Sight Research Laboratories, Devers Eye Institute, Legacy Research Institute, Portland, Oregon, USA. 5. Devers Eye Institute Glaucoma Service, Portland, Oregon, USA. 6. Discoveries in Sight Research Laboratories, Devers Eye Institute, Legacy Research Institute, Portland, Oregon, USA; Devers Eye Institute Glaucoma Service, Portland, Oregon, USA. 7. Optic Nerve Head Research Laboratory, Devers Eye Institute, Legacy Research Institute, Portland, Oregon, USA; Discoveries in Sight Research Laboratories, Devers Eye Institute, Legacy Research Institute, Portland, Oregon, USA; Devers Eye Institute Glaucoma Service, Portland, Oregon, USA. Electronic address: cfburgoyne@deverseye.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To quantify the variability of 5 glaucoma specialists' optic disc margin (DM), rim margin (RM), and rim width (RW) estimates. DESIGN: Inter-observer reliability analysis. METHODS: Clinicians viewed stereo-photographs from 214 subjects with glaucoma or ocular hypertension and digitally marked the DM and RM. For each photograph, the centroid of each clinician's DM was calculated, and an averaged DMcentroid was determined. The axis between the DMcentroid and the fovea was used to establish 12 30-degree sectors. Measurements from the DMcentroid to each clinician's DM (DMradius) and RM (RMradius) were used to generate a RW (DMradius-RMradius) and cup-to-disc ratio (CDR) (RMradius/DMradius) by sector. Parameter means, standard deviations, and coefficient of variations (COVs) were calculated across all clinicians for each eye. Parameter means for each clinician, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), were calculated across all eyes by sector. RESULTS: Among all eyes, the median COV by sector ranged from 3% to 5% for DMradius, 20% to 25% for RMradius, and 26% to 30% for RW. Sectoral ICCs for CDR ranged from 0.566 to 0.668. Sectors suspicious for rim thinning by 1 clinician were frequently overlooked by others. Among 1724 sectors in which at least 1 clinician was suspicious for rim thinning (CDR ≥ 0.7), all 5 clinicians' CDRs were ≥ 0.7 in only 499 (29%), and 2 of the 5 clinicians failed to detect rim thinning (CDR < 0.7) in 442 (26%). CONCLUSION: In this study, glaucoma specialist RM, DM, and RW discordance was frequent and substantial, even in sectors that were suspicious for rim thinning.
PURPOSE: To quantify the variability of 5 glaucoma specialists' optic disc margin (DM), rim margin (RM), and rim width (RW) estimates. DESIGN: Inter-observer reliability analysis. METHODS: Clinicians viewed stereo-photographs from 214 subjects with glaucoma or ocular hypertension and digitally marked the DM and RM. For each photograph, the centroid of each clinician's DM was calculated, and an averaged DMcentroid was determined. The axis between the DMcentroid and the fovea was used to establish 12 30-degree sectors. Measurements from the DMcentroid to each clinician's DM (DMradius) and RM (RMradius) were used to generate a RW (DMradius-RMradius) and cup-to-disc ratio (CDR) (RMradius/DMradius) by sector. Parameter means, standard deviations, and coefficient of variations (COVs) were calculated across all clinicians for each eye. Parameter means for each clinician, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), were calculated across all eyes by sector. RESULTS: Among all eyes, the median COV by sector ranged from 3% to 5% for DMradius, 20% to 25% for RMradius, and 26% to 30% for RW. Sectoral ICCs for CDR ranged from 0.566 to 0.668. Sectors suspicious for rim thinning by 1 clinician were frequently overlooked by others. Among 1724 sectors in which at least 1 clinician was suspicious for rim thinning (CDR ≥ 0.7), all 5 clinicians' CDRs were ≥ 0.7 in only 499 (29%), and 2 of the 5 clinicians failed to detect rim thinning (CDR < 0.7) in 442 (26%). CONCLUSION: In this study, glaucoma specialist RM, DM, and RW discordance was frequent and substantial, even in sectors that were suspicious for rim thinning.
Authors: Stella N Arthur; Aric J Aldridge; Julio De León-Ortega; Gerald McGwin; Aiyuan Xie; Christopher A Girkin Journal: J Glaucoma Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Nicholas G Strouthidis; Hongli Yang; Juan F Reynaud; Jonathan L Grimm; Stuart K Gardiner; Brad Fortune; Claude F Burgoyne Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2009-05-14 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Bruce E Prum; Lisa F Rosenberg; Steven J Gedde; Steven L Mansberger; Joshua D Stein; Sayoko E Moroi; Leon W Herndon; Michele C Lim; Ruth D Williams Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2015-11-12 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Fatima Kyari; Gabriel Entekume; Mansur Rabiu; Paul Spry; Richard Wormald; Winifred Nolan; Gudlavalleti V S Murthy; Clare E Gilbert Journal: BMC Ophthalmol Date: 2015-12-12 Impact factor: 2.209
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
Authors: Seungwoo Hong; Hongli Yang; Stuart K Gardiner; Haomin Luo; Christy Hardin; Glen P Sharpe; Joseph Caprioli; Shaban Demirel; Christopher A Girkin; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Christian Y Mardin; Harry A Quigley; Alexander F Scheuerle; Brad Fortune; Balwantray C Chauhan; Claude F Burgoyne Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2019-05-13 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: R L Bartlett; B E Frost; K E Mortlock; J R Fergusson; N White; J E Morgan; R V North; J Albon Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-06-07 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Jasmin Rezapour; Christopher Bowd; Jade Dohleman; Akram Belghith; James A Proudfoot; Mark Christopher; Leslie Hyman; Jost B Jonas; Massimo A Fazio; Robert N Weinreb; Linda M Zangwill Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-04-23 Impact factor: 4.996