Importance: Artifacts can affect optical coherence tomographic angiography (OCTA) images and may be associated with misinterpretation of OCT scans in both clinical trials and clinical settings. Objectives: To identify the prevalence and type of artifacts in OCTA images associated with quantitative output and to analyze the role of proprietary quality indices in establishing image reliability. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study evaluated baseline OCTA images acquired in multicenter clinical trials and submitted to the Fundus Photograph Reading Center in Madison, Wisconsin, between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. Images were captured using the 3 mm × 3 mm and/or 6 mm × 6 mm scan protocol with commercially available OCTA systems. Artifacts, including decentration, segmentation error, movement, blink, refraction shift, defocus, shadow, Z offset, tilt, and projection, were given a severity grade based on involvement of cross-sectional OCT and area of OCT grid affected. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prevalence and severity of OCTA artifacts and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of quality indices with image reliability. Results: A total of 406 OCTA images from 234 eyes were included in this study, of which 221 (54.4%) were 6 mm × 6 mm scans and 185 (45.6%) were 3 mm × 3 mm scans. At least 1 artifact was documented in 395 images (97.3%). Severe artifacts associated with the reliability of quantitative outputs were found in 217 images (53.5%). Shadow (26.9% [109 images]), defocus (20.9% [85 images]), and movement (16.0% [65 images]) were the 3 most prevalent artifacts. Prevalence of artifacts did not vary with the imaging system used or with the scan protocol; however, the type of artifacts varied. Commercially recommended quality index thresholds had an AUC of 0.80 to 0.83, sensitivity of 97% to 99%, and specificity of 37% to 41% for reliable images. Conclusions and Relevance: Findings from this study suggest that artifacts associated with quantitative outputs on commercially available OCTA devices are highly prevalent and that identifying common artifacts may require correlation with the angiogram and cross-sectional OCT scans. Knowledge of these artifacts and their implications for OCTA indices appears to be warranted for more accurate interpretation of OCTA images.
Importance: Artifacts can affect optical coherence tomographic angiography (OCTA) images and may be associated with misinterpretation of OCT scans in both clinical trials and clinical settings. Objectives: To identify the prevalence and type of artifacts in OCTA images associated with quantitative output and to analyze the role of proprietary quality indices in establishing image reliability. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study evaluated baseline OCTA images acquired in multicenter clinical trials and submitted to the Fundus Photograph Reading Center in Madison, Wisconsin, between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. Images were captured using the 3 mm × 3 mm and/or 6 mm × 6 mm scan protocol with commercially available OCTA systems. Artifacts, including decentration, segmentation error, movement, blink, refraction shift, defocus, shadow, Z offset, tilt, and projection, were given a severity grade based on involvement of cross-sectional OCT and area of OCT grid affected. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prevalence and severity of OCTA artifacts and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of quality indices with image reliability. Results: A total of 406 OCTA images from 234 eyes were included in this study, of which 221 (54.4%) were 6 mm × 6 mm scans and 185 (45.6%) were 3 mm × 3 mm scans. At least 1 artifact was documented in 395 images (97.3%). Severe artifacts associated with the reliability of quantitative outputs were found in 217 images (53.5%). Shadow (26.9% [109 images]), defocus (20.9% [85 images]), and movement (16.0% [65 images]) were the 3 most prevalent artifacts. Prevalence of artifacts did not vary with the imaging system used or with the scan protocol; however, the type of artifacts varied. Commercially recommended quality index thresholds had an AUC of 0.80 to 0.83, sensitivity of 97% to 99%, and specificity of 37% to 41% for reliable images. Conclusions and Relevance: Findings from this study suggest that artifacts associated with quantitative outputs on commercially available OCTA devices are highly prevalent and that identifying common artifacts may require correlation with the angiogram and cross-sectional OCT scans. Knowledge of these artifacts and their implications for OCTA indices appears to be warranted for more accurate interpretation of OCTA images.
Authors: J L Lauermann; A K Woetzel; M Treder; M Alnawaiseh; C R Clemens; N Eter; Florian Alten Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2018-07-07 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Qinqin Zhang; Anqi Zhang; Cecilia S Lee; Aaron Y Lee; Kasra A Rezaei; Luiz Roisman; Andrew Miller; Fang Zheng; Giovani Gregori; Mary K Durbin; Lin An; Paul F Stetson; Philip J Rosenfeld; Ruikang K Wang Journal: Ophthalmol Retina Date: 2017 Mar-Apr
Authors: Susan B Bressler; Allison R Edwards; Kakarla V Chalam; Neil M Bressler; Adam R Glassman; Glenn J Jaffe; Michele Melia; David D Saggau; Oren Z Plous Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Siqing Yu; Beatrice E Frueh; Dagmar Steinmair; Andreas Ebneter; Sebastian Wolf; Martin S Zinkernagel; Marion R Munk Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-10-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jesse J Jung; Daryle Jason G Yu; Anne Zeng; Michael H Chen; Yue Shi; Marco Nassisi; Kenneth M Marion; Srinivas R Sadda; Quan V Hoang Journal: Ophthalmol Retina Date: 2020-05-07
Authors: Emily S Wong; Xiu-Juan Zhang; Nan Yuan; Jian Li; C P Pang; Lijia Chen; Clement C Tham; Carol Y Cheung; Jason C Yam Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Tristan T Hormel; Thomas S Hwang; Steven T Bailey; David J Wilson; David Huang; Yali Jia Journal: Prog Retin Eye Res Date: 2021-03-22 Impact factor: 21.198
Authors: Amir H Kashani; Samuel Asanad; Jane W Chan; Maxwell B Singer; Jiong Zhang; Mona Sharifi; Maziyar M Khansari; Farzan Abdolahi; Yonggang Shi; Alessandro Biffi; Helena Chui; John M Ringman Journal: Prog Retin Eye Res Date: 2021-01-15 Impact factor: 19.704
Authors: Alireza Kamalipour; Sasan Moghimi; Huiyuan Hou; Rafaella C Penteado; Won Hyuk Oh; James A Proudfoot; Nevin El-Nimri; Eren Ekici; Jasmin Rezapour; Linda M Zangwill; Christopher Bowd; Robert N Weinreb Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2021-04-02 Impact factor: 14.277