Factors influencing the reliability of measurements in eyes with full-thickness macular holes: are we measuring incorrectly?

IF 2 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY
George Moussa, Assad Jalil, Myrta Lippera, Nouf Alnafisee, Tsveta Ivanova
{"title":"Factors influencing the reliability of measurements in eyes with full-thickness macular holes: are we measuring incorrectly?","authors":"George Moussa, Assad Jalil, Myrta Lippera, Nouf Alnafisee, Tsveta Ivanova","doi":"10.1136/bmjophth-2023-001531","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The calliper function is used for manual measurements of full thickness macular holes (FTMHs). We aimed to investigate whether a reproducible difference could be detected beyond interobserver variability between two commonly used manufacturers in their manual calliper facility in spectral domain optical coherence tomography (OCT) for metrics related to FTMH.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a non-interventional, retrospective, observational study. Two independent observers examined 8 eyes (16 OCT) scans and 128 measurements (minimal linear diameter (MLD), basal diameter and hole height on both sides) of FTMHs, taken on Heidelberg Spectralis and Topcon Triton (OCT machines). The interobserver agreement and OCT machine agreement of measurements were analysed by Bland-Altman plots and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analysis. Spectralis and Triton had 125 µm and 50 µm horizontal b-scan spacing, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, we report high absolute agreement in interobserver (ICC 0.991 (95% CI 0.985 to 0.995, p<0.001)) and OCT machine (ICC 0.993 (95% CI 0.987 to 0.996, p<0.001)) variability. Lower horizontal resolution in Triton compared with Spectralis leads to interobserver variability, in smaller horizontal measurements. Lower horizontal scanning density in Spectralis lead to relatively large interobserver variation if different reference scans were chosen, and consistently smaller MLD measurements than Triton. Vertical measurements without 1:1 scaling lead to inaccurate exaggerated oblique vertical measurements. Calliper function appears otherwise identically calibrated.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We report excellent interobserver and OCT machine agreement in measurements. However, the paper shows several factors that could influence the reliability of measurements acquired in eyes with FTMHs, such as the dimension of the hole as well as different image resolution, density scanning protocols or vertical scaling of the OCT machines viewing platform.</p>","PeriodicalId":9286,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Ophthalmology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11331849/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjophth-2023-001531","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The calliper function is used for manual measurements of full thickness macular holes (FTMHs). We aimed to investigate whether a reproducible difference could be detected beyond interobserver variability between two commonly used manufacturers in their manual calliper facility in spectral domain optical coherence tomography (OCT) for metrics related to FTMH.

Methods: This is a non-interventional, retrospective, observational study. Two independent observers examined 8 eyes (16 OCT) scans and 128 measurements (minimal linear diameter (MLD), basal diameter and hole height on both sides) of FTMHs, taken on Heidelberg Spectralis and Topcon Triton (OCT machines). The interobserver agreement and OCT machine agreement of measurements were analysed by Bland-Altman plots and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analysis. Spectralis and Triton had 125 µm and 50 µm horizontal b-scan spacing, respectively.

Results: Overall, we report high absolute agreement in interobserver (ICC 0.991 (95% CI 0.985 to 0.995, p<0.001)) and OCT machine (ICC 0.993 (95% CI 0.987 to 0.996, p<0.001)) variability. Lower horizontal resolution in Triton compared with Spectralis leads to interobserver variability, in smaller horizontal measurements. Lower horizontal scanning density in Spectralis lead to relatively large interobserver variation if different reference scans were chosen, and consistently smaller MLD measurements than Triton. Vertical measurements without 1:1 scaling lead to inaccurate exaggerated oblique vertical measurements. Calliper function appears otherwise identically calibrated.

Conclusions: We report excellent interobserver and OCT machine agreement in measurements. However, the paper shows several factors that could influence the reliability of measurements acquired in eyes with FTMHs, such as the dimension of the hole as well as different image resolution, density scanning protocols or vertical scaling of the OCT machines viewing platform.

影响全厚黄斑孔眼睛测量可靠性的因素:我们的测量是否有误?
目的:卡钳功能用于手动测量全厚黄斑孔(FTMHs)。我们的目的是研究在光谱域光学相干断层扫描(OCT)中,两家常用制造商的手动卡钳设备在 FTMH 相关指标方面的观察者间变异性之外,是否能发现可重复的差异:这是一项非干预性、回顾性、观察性研究。两名独立观察员检查了海德堡 Spectralis 和拓普康 Triton(OCT 机)上的 8 眼(16 个 OCT)扫描和 128 次 FTMH 测量(最小线性直径 (MLD)、基底直径和两侧孔高度)。通过布兰德-阿尔特曼图(Bland-Altman plots)和类内相关系数(ICC)分析,对观察者之间的一致性和 OCT 机的测量一致性进行了分析。Spectralis 和 Triton 的水平 b-scan 间距分别为 125 微米和 50 微米:总体而言,我们报告的观察者间绝对一致性很高(ICC 0.991 (95% CI 0.985 to 0.995, pConclusions.)):我们报告的观察者间和 OCT 机器的测量结果具有极佳的一致性。然而,论文显示有几个因素可能会影响 FTMHs 眼球测量结果的可靠性,如孔的尺寸以及不同的图像分辨率、密度扫描协议或 OCT 机观察平台的垂直缩放。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Open Ophthalmology
BMJ Open Ophthalmology OPHTHALMOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
4.20%
发文量
104
审稿时长
20 weeks
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信