4.6 Article

Repeatability of Manual Subfoveal Choroidal Thickness Measurements in Healthy Subjects Using the Technique of Enhanced Depth Imaging Optical Coherence Tomography

期刊

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
卷 52, 期 5, 页码 2267-2271

出版社

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.10-6024

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to investigate the repeatability of manual measurements of choroidal thickness in healthy subjects imaged on spectral domain optical coherence tomography (OCT) using the enhanced depth imaging (EDI) technique. METHODS. Fifty consecutive, healthy, young, adult volunteers with no known eye disease were enrolled prospectively. Two good-quality horizontal and vertical line scans through the fovea were obtained for each eye. Using the manual calipers provided by the software of the proprietary device, two experienced OCT readers measured the subfoveal choroidal thickness (SFCT) of the horizontal and vertical line scans for all eyes. The readers were masked to each other's readings. Intraobserver, interobserver, and intrasession coefficients of repeatability (CRs) were calculated. RESULTS. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) age of the study subjects was 38 (5) years (range, 30-49 years). Mean (SD) subfoveal choroidal thickness was 332 (90) mu m (right eyes) and 332 (91) mu m (left eyes). Intraobserver CR was approximately 23 (95% confidence interval [CI], 19-26) mu m, whereas interobserver and intrasession CRs were greater at 32 (95% CI, 30-34) and 34 (95% CI, 32-36) mu m, respectively. There was no significant difference in SFCT between all pairs of SFCT measurements except for the two intrasession vertical line scans. CONCLUSION. A change of >32 mu m was likely to exceed interobserver variability in SFCT. Future studies are required to estimate the repeatability of SFCT measurements in patients with chorioretinal pathology. (Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52:2267-2271) DOI:10.1167/iovs.10-6024

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

4.6
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