4.5 Review

The role of optical coherence tomography in multiple sclerosis: Expert panel consensus

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES
Volume 263, Issue 1-2, Pages 3-14

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jns.2007.05.024

Keywords

optical coherence tomography; optic neuritis; multiple sclerosis; retinal nerve fiber layer; disease modifying drugs; magnetic resonance imaging

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Optic neuritis ( ON), a common manifestation of multiple sclerosis ( MS), often occurs as the initial manifestation of central nervous system demyelination or develops during the course of this disease. Since the retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) is composed only of unmyelinated axons, measuring RNFL thickness represents a viable method of monitoring axonal loss in these patients. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is a noninvasive, noncontact, accurate, and reproducible technique that quantitates the thickness of the peripapillary RNFL, fovea, and macula. Because of its potential role in defining axonal loss in ON and in assessing longitudinal changes in the RNFL before and after MS treatment, a multidisciplinary expert panel was charged with the following tasks: assess the current capabilities of OCT; review the current data about OCT, ON, and MS; and determine whether OCT could be a primary or secondary outcome measure in future MS clinical trials. The panel concluded that: [1] OCT is valid and reproducible; [2] OCT has yielded some important limited data concerning cross-sectional studies with ON and MS; [3] more studies are required to correlate OCT results with other measures of MS disease activity; [4] after correlation with these other measures and upon agreement of standardized technical and statistical methods, OCT may evolve into a important primary or secondary outcome metric for MS clinical trials and patient care. (c) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available