4.6 Article

Optical coherence tomography-based decision making in exudative age-related macular degeneration: comparison of time- vs spectral-domain devices

期刊

EYE
卷 24, 期 5, 页码 775-783

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/eye.2009.211

关键词

age-related macular degeneration; optical coherence tomography; clinical trials; neovascularization; anti-angiogenic treatment

资金

  1. National Eye Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To determine whether optical coherence tomography (OCT) device-type influences clinical grading of OCT imaging in the context of exudative age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Methods Ninety-six paired OCT scans from 49 patients with active exudative AMD were obtained on both the time-domain Stratus OCT system and the spectral-domain Cirrus OCT system at the same visit. Three independent graders judged each scan for the presence of intraretinal fluid (IRF) or subretinal fluid (SRF). The degree of grader consensus was evaluated and the ability of the systems to detect the presence of disease activity was analysed. Results Cirrus OCT generated a higher degree of inter-grader consensus than Stratus OCT with higher intraclass correlation coefficients for all parameters analysed. A pair-wise comparison of Cirrus OCT with Stratus OCT systems revealed that Cirrus-based gradings more frequently reported the presence of SRF and IRF and detected overall neovascular activity at a higher rate (P<0.05) compared with Stratus-based gradings. Conclusions The choice of time-domain (Stratus) vs spectra-domain (Cirrus) OCT systems has a measurable impact on clinical decision making in exudative AMD. Spectral-domain OCT systems may be able to generate more consensus in clinical interpretation and, in particular cases, detect disease activity not detected by time-domain systems. Clinical trials using OCT-based clinical evaluations of exudative AMD may need to account for these inter-system differences in planning and analysis. Eye (2010) 24, 775-783; doi:10.1038/eye.2009.211; published online 21 August 2009

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