裂口灯生物显微镜、眼底摄影和光学相干断层扫描放大校正视盘大小的比较。

IF 1.2 Q4 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Taiwan Journal of Ophthalmology Pub Date : 2024-11-08 eCollection Date: 2025-07-01 DOI:10.4103/tjo.TJO-D-24-00058
Linya Thomas, Chidanand Kulkarni, Neetha I R Kuzhuppilly
{"title":"裂口灯生物显微镜、眼底摄影和光学相干断层扫描放大校正视盘大小的比较。","authors":"Linya Thomas, Chidanand Kulkarni, Neetha I R Kuzhuppilly","doi":"10.4103/tjo.TJO-D-24-00058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Optic disc size measurement is essential for determining landmarks, lesions, and distances of the retina. Due to the size variability in nature and when measured with different instruments, newer methods to compare sizes between different instruments are needed. We aimed to determine the comparability of slit lamp, fundus photography, and optical coherence tomography (OCT) measurements of optic disc size after correcting for both ocular and instrument magnification.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In this prospective, observational study, optic disc size was measured by slit-lamp biomicroscopy, fundus photography, and OCT. Instrument and ocular magnification was calculated, and the measured size was corrected for both using the Littman formula. The corrected values were analyzed using Bland-Altman plots and intra-class correlation (ICC) for agreeability and correlation, respectively. Linear regression analysis was conducted to estimate the systematic errors and interconvertibility in cases of high correlation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-six eyes were included for the analysis. Uncorrected and corrected values for each method had excellent correlation and agreeability (ICC absolute agreement >0.75, <i>P</i> < 0.01). Among magnification corrected values, slit lamp and OCT had excellent correlation and agreement (ICC consistency = 0.846, confidence interval 0.75-0.91, <i>P</i> < 0.01). This pair had <i>R</i> <sup>2</sup> = 0.73 on linear regression (<i>P</i> < 0.01). Linear regression formulas for interconverting uncorrected and corrected values for the three methods had variable accuracy (<i>R</i> <sup>2</sup> from 0.47 to 0.66).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Uncorrected values of different methods for disc size measurement cannot be compared directly; they need ocular and instrument magnification correction. Among the three methods compared, the best interconvertible pairs of measurement were magnification corrected slit lamp and OCT values.</p>","PeriodicalId":44978,"journal":{"name":"Taiwan Journal of Ophthalmology","volume":"15 3","pages":"466-473"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12456909/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of magnification corrected optic disc size by slit-lamp biomicroscopy, fundus photography, and optical coherence tomography.\",\"authors\":\"Linya Thomas, Chidanand Kulkarni, Neetha I R Kuzhuppilly\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/tjo.TJO-D-24-00058\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Optic disc size measurement is essential for determining landmarks, lesions, and distances of the retina. Due to the size variability in nature and when measured with different instruments, newer methods to compare sizes between different instruments are needed. We aimed to determine the comparability of slit lamp, fundus photography, and optical coherence tomography (OCT) measurements of optic disc size after correcting for both ocular and instrument magnification.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In this prospective, observational study, optic disc size was measured by slit-lamp biomicroscopy, fundus photography, and OCT. Instrument and ocular magnification was calculated, and the measured size was corrected for both using the Littman formula. The corrected values were analyzed using Bland-Altman plots and intra-class correlation (ICC) for agreeability and correlation, respectively. Linear regression analysis was conducted to estimate the systematic errors and interconvertibility in cases of high correlation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-six eyes were included for the analysis. Uncorrected and corrected values for each method had excellent correlation and agreeability (ICC absolute agreement >0.75, <i>P</i> < 0.01). Among magnification corrected values, slit lamp and OCT had excellent correlation and agreement (ICC consistency = 0.846, confidence interval 0.75-0.91, <i>P</i> < 0.01). This pair had <i>R</i> <sup>2</sup> = 0.73 on linear regression (<i>P</i> < 0.01). Linear regression formulas for interconverting uncorrected and corrected values for the three methods had variable accuracy (<i>R</i> <sup>2</sup> from 0.47 to 0.66).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Uncorrected values of different methods for disc size measurement cannot be compared directly; they need ocular and instrument magnification correction. Among the three methods compared, the best interconvertible pairs of measurement were magnification corrected slit lamp and OCT values.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44978,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Taiwan Journal of Ophthalmology\",\"volume\":\"15 3\",\"pages\":\"466-473\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12456909/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Taiwan Journal of Ophthalmology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/tjo.TJO-D-24-00058\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Taiwan Journal of Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/tjo.TJO-D-24-00058","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:视盘大小测量是确定视网膜的标志,病变和距离的必要条件。由于自然界中尺寸的可变性以及用不同仪器测量时的可变性,需要更新的方法来比较不同仪器之间的尺寸。我们的目的是确定裂隙灯、眼底摄影和光学相干断层扫描(OCT)测量视盘大小的可比性,校正后的眼睛和仪器放大倍率。材料和方法:在这项前瞻性的观察性研究中,视盘大小通过裂隙灯生物显微镜、眼底摄影和oct测量,仪器和眼放大率计算,并使用Littman公式对测量的尺寸进行校正。校正值分别用Bland-Altman图和类内相关(ICC)分析一致性和相关性。采用线性回归分析估计高相关情况下的系统误差和可兑换性。结果:56只眼纳入分析。各方法的未校正值和校正值具有极好的相关性和一致性(ICC绝对一致性>0.75,P < 0.01)。在放大校正值中,裂隙灯与OCT具有极好的相关性和一致性(ICC一致性= 0.846,置信区间0.75 ~ 0.91,P < 0.01)。经线性回归,R 2 = 0.73 (P < 0.01)。三种方法的未校正值和校正值相互转换的线性回归公式具有不同的精度(r2为0.47 ~ 0.66)。结论:不同方法测量椎间盘大小的未校正值不能直接比较;他们需要眼睛和仪器放大矫正。在比较的三种方法中,最佳的可转换测量对是放大倍率校正的裂隙灯和OCT值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparison of magnification corrected optic disc size by slit-lamp biomicroscopy, fundus photography, and optical coherence tomography.

Comparison of magnification corrected optic disc size by slit-lamp biomicroscopy, fundus photography, and optical coherence tomography.

Purpose: Optic disc size measurement is essential for determining landmarks, lesions, and distances of the retina. Due to the size variability in nature and when measured with different instruments, newer methods to compare sizes between different instruments are needed. We aimed to determine the comparability of slit lamp, fundus photography, and optical coherence tomography (OCT) measurements of optic disc size after correcting for both ocular and instrument magnification.

Materials and methods: In this prospective, observational study, optic disc size was measured by slit-lamp biomicroscopy, fundus photography, and OCT. Instrument and ocular magnification was calculated, and the measured size was corrected for both using the Littman formula. The corrected values were analyzed using Bland-Altman plots and intra-class correlation (ICC) for agreeability and correlation, respectively. Linear regression analysis was conducted to estimate the systematic errors and interconvertibility in cases of high correlation.

Results: Fifty-six eyes were included for the analysis. Uncorrected and corrected values for each method had excellent correlation and agreeability (ICC absolute agreement >0.75, P < 0.01). Among magnification corrected values, slit lamp and OCT had excellent correlation and agreement (ICC consistency = 0.846, confidence interval 0.75-0.91, P < 0.01). This pair had R 2 = 0.73 on linear regression (P < 0.01). Linear regression formulas for interconverting uncorrected and corrected values for the three methods had variable accuracy (R 2 from 0.47 to 0.66).

Conclusion: Uncorrected values of different methods for disc size measurement cannot be compared directly; they need ocular and instrument magnification correction. Among the three methods compared, the best interconvertible pairs of measurement were magnification corrected slit lamp and OCT values.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
9.10%
发文量
68
审稿时长
19 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信