4.7 Article

APOSTEL 2.0 Recommendations for Reporting Quantitative Optical Coherence Tomography Studies

Journal

NEUROLOGY
Volume 97, Issue 2, Pages 68-79

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000012125

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Medical Research Council [G0701386, G1002570, MR/S026088/1] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study updated consensus recommendations for reporting quantitative OCT study results by modifying the previously published APOSTEL recommendations through a modified Delphi method. The experts proposed changes based on feedback from corresponding authors and achieved a consensus rate of over 90%. The updated 9-point checklist covers various aspects of OCT study reporting and will need regular updates to reflect new research and practices.
Objective To update the consensus recommendations for reporting of quantitative optical coherence tomography (OCT) study results, thus revising the previously published Advised Protocol for OCT Study Terminology and Elements (APOSTEL) recommendations. Methods To identify studies reporting quantitative OCT results, we performed a PubMed search for the terms quantitative and optical coherence tomography from 2015 to 2017. Corresponding authors of the identified publications were invited to provide feedback on the initial APOSTEL recommendations via online surveys following the principle of a modified Delphi method. The results were evaluated and discussed by a panel of experts and changes to the initial recommendations were proposed. A final survey was recirculated among the corresponding authors to obtain a majority vote on the proposed changes. Results A total of 116 authors participated in the surveys, resulting in 15 suggestions, of which 12 were finally accepted and incorporated into an updated 9-point checklist. We harmonized the nomenclature of the outer retinal layers, added the exact area of measurement to the description of volume scans, and suggested reporting device-specific features. We advised to address potential bias in manual segmentation or manual correction of segmentation errors. References to specific reporting guidelines and room light conditions were removed. The participants' consensus with the recommendations increased from 80% for the previous APOSTEL version to greater than 90%. Conclusions The modified Delphi method resulted in an expert-led guideline (evidence Class III; Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations [GRADE] criteria) concerning study protocol, acquisition device, acquisition settings, scanning protocol, funduscopic imaging, postacquisition data selection, postacquisition analysis, nomenclature and abbreviations, and statistical approach. It will be essential to update these recommendations to new research and practices regularly.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available