4.1 Article

Reproducibility-Repeatability of Choroidal Thickness Calculation Using Optical Coherence Tomography

期刊

OPTOMETRY AND VISION SCIENCE
卷 87, 期 11, 页码 867-872

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181f3eced

关键词

choroidal thickness; optical coherence tomography; in vivo manual measurement; axial length

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose. To evaluate the repeatability and reproducibility of subfoveal choroidal thickness (CT) calculations performed manually using optical coherence tomography (OCT). Methods. The CT was imaged in vivo at each of two visits on 11 healthy volunteers (mean age, 35.72 +/- 13.19 years) using the spectral domain OCT. CT was manually measured after applying ImageJ processing filters on 15 radial subfoveal scans. Each radial scan was spaced 12 degrees from each other and contained 2500 A-scans. The coefficient of variability, coefficient of repeatability (CoR), coefficient of reproducibility, and intraclass correlation coefficient determined the reproducibility and repeatability of the calculation. Axial length (AL) and mean spherical equivalent refractive error were measured with the IOLMaster and an open view autorefractor to study their potential relationship with CT. Results. The within-visit and between-visit coefficient of variability, CoR, coefficient of reproducibility, and intraclass correlation coefficient were 0.80, 2.97% 2.44%, and 99%, respectively. The subfoveal CT correlated significantly with AL (R = -0.60, p = 0.05). Conclusions. The subfoveal CT could be measured manually in vivo using OCT and the readings obtained from the healthy subjects evaluated were repeatable and reproducible. It is proposed that OCT could be a useful instrument to perform in vivo assessment and monitoring of CT changes in retinal disease. The preliminary results suggest a negative correlation between subfoveal CT and AL in such a way that it decreases with increasing AL but not with refractive error. (Optom Vis Sci 2010;87:867-872)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据