PMID- 21397334
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20110905
LR  - 20211020
IS  - 1549-4713 (Electronic)
IS  - 0161-6420 (Print)
IS  - 0161-6420 (Linking)
VI  - 118
IP  - 7
DP  - 2011 Jul
TI  - Comparison of automated analysis of Cirrus HD OCT spectral-domain optical 
      coherence tomography with stereo photographs of the optic disc.
PG  - 1348-57
LID - 10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.12.008 [doi]
AB  - OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a new automated analysis of optic disc images obtained by 
      spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD OCT). Areas of the optic disc, 
      cup, and neural rim in SD OCT images were compared with these areas from 
      stereoscopic photographs to represent the current traditional optic nerve 
      evaluation. The repeatability of measurements by each method was determined and 
      compared. DESIGN: Evaluation of diagnostic technology. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred 
      nineteen healthy eyes, 23 eyes with glaucoma, and 7 glaucoma suspect eyes. 
      METHODS: Optic disc and cup margins were traced from stereoscopic photographs by 
      3 individuals independently. Optic disc margins and rim widths were determined 
      automatically in SD OCT. A subset of photographs was examined and traced a second 
      time, and duplicate SD OCT images also were analyzed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 
      Agreement among photograph readers, between duplicate readings, and between SD 
      OCT and photographs were quantified by the intraclass correlation coefficient 
      (ICC), by the root mean square, and by the standard deviation of the differences. 
      RESULTS: Optic disc areas tended to be slightly larger when judged in photographs 
      than by SD OCT, whereas cup areas were similar. Cup and optic disc areas showed 
      good correlation (0.8) between the average photographic reading and SD OCT, but 
      only fair correlation of rim areas (0.4). The SD OCT was highly reproducible 
      (ICC, 0.96-0.99). Each reader also was consistent with himself on duplicate 
      readings of 21 photographs (ICC, 0.80-0.88 for rim area and 0.95-0.98 for all 
      other measurements), but reproducibility was not as good as SD OCT. Measurements 
      derived from SD OCT did not differ from photographic readings more than the 
      readings of photographs by different readers differed from each other. 
      CONCLUSIONS: Designation of the cup and optic disc boundaries by an automated 
      analysis of SD OCT was within the range of variable designations by different 
      readers from color stereoscopic photographs, but use of different landmarks 
      typically made the designation of the optic disc size somewhat smaller in the 
      automated analysis. There was better repeatability among measurements from SD OCT 
      than from among readers of photographs. The repeatability of automated 
      measurement of SD OCT images is promising for use both in diagnosis and in 
      monitoring of progression.
CI  - Copyright (c) 2011 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. 
      All rights reserved.
FAU - Sharma, Ashish
AU  - Sharma A
AD  - Department of Ophthalmology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, 
      Miami, FL, USA.
FAU - Oakley, Jonathan D
AU  - Oakley JD
FAU - Schiffman, Joyce C
AU  - Schiffman JC
FAU - Budenz, Donald L
AU  - Budenz DL
FAU - Anderson, Douglas R
AU  - Anderson DR
LA  - eng
GR  - P30 EY014801/EY/NEI NIH HHS/United States
GR  - P30 EY014801-07/EY/NEI NIH HHS/United States
PT  - Comparative Study
PT  - Journal Article
PT  - Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
DEP - 20110312
PL  - United States
TA  - Ophthalmology
JT  - Ophthalmology
JID - 7802443
SB  - IM
CIN - Ophthalmology. 2012 Mar;119(3):650-1; author reply 651-2. PMID: 22385488
MH  - Automation
MH  - Cohort Studies
MH  - Glaucoma/*diagnosis
MH  - Humans
MH  - Observer Variation
MH  - Optic Disk/*pathology
MH  - Photography/*methods
MH  - Reproducibility of Results
MH  - Software
MH  - Tomography, Optical Coherence/*methods
PMC - PMC3129482
MID - NIHMS259356
EDAT- 2011/03/15 06:00
MHDA- 2011/09/06 06:00
PMCR- 2012/07/01
CRDT- 2011/03/15 06:00
PHST- 2010/06/15 00:00 [received]
PHST- 2010/12/04 00:00 [revised]
PHST- 2010/12/08 00:00 [accepted]
PHST- 2011/03/15 06:00 [entrez]
PHST- 2011/03/15 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2011/09/06 06:00 [medline]
PHST- 2012/07/01 00:00 [pmc-release]
AID - S0161-6420(10)01282-0 [pii]
AID - 10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.12.008 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - Ophthalmology. 2011 Jul;118(7):1348-57. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.12.008. Epub 
      2011 Mar 12.