Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 263

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reproducibility of Choroidal Thickness Measurements Across Three Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography Systems

Open access
Branchini, Lauren, Regatieri, Caio V., Flores-Moreno, Ignacio, Baumann, Bernhard, Fujimoto, James G., Duker, Jay S.·2012·Ophthalmology

Abstract

Purpose To investigate the reproducibility of choroidal thickness measurements in normal subjects on three Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography (SDOCT) instruments, Zeiss Cirrus HD-OCT (Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc, Dublin, California, USA), Heidelberg Spectralis (Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany) and Optovue RTVue (Optovue Inc., Fremont, CA). Design Cross-sectional non-interventional study Participants Images were obtained in 28 eyes of 28 healthy undilated volunteers without ocular pathology in a clinical setting. Methods All subjects were imaged on the fovea using Cirrus HD 1-line raster, Spectralis enhanced depth imaging and RTVue retina-cross. Main Outcome Measures The choroid was measured subfoveally, 750 μm temporal and 750 μm nasal to the fovea. All measurements were performed by 2 independent observers. Two way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni's post-test, Pearson correlation and the Bland-Altman analysis were used to compare measurements. Results The group of 28 subjects consisted of 7 men and 21 women, with an average age of 35.2 years (range, 23 to 64 years). A two way ANOVA with Bonferroni's post-test revealed no significant difference in the average subfoveal choroidal thickness (P >0.05) between systems for any location: subfoveally, 750μm temporal and 750 μm nasal to the fovea. The measurements of choroidal thickness from any pair of three instruments (Cirrus vs. Spectralis, Cirrus vs. RTVue, Spectralis vs. RTVue) were also strongly correlated. The Pearson correlation between all two system pairs of the three systems was greater than 0.9 p <0.0001. The 95% limits of agreement between four choroidal thickness measurements between Cirrus and RTVue were +11.21% to -13.57% (Bias -1.17), between Spectralis and RTVue +10.85% to -12.45% (Bias -0.80) and between Cirrus and Spectralis +12.81% to -13.33% (Bias -0.25). Conclusions In our population of young healthy adults with normal vision, there was good reproducibility between choroidal thickness measurements of images acquired with Cirrus, Spectralis and RTVue.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.07.002

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 11 references

Cited by

See all 263

Metadata

Authors
Branchini, L., Regatieri, C. V., Flores-Moreno, I., Baumann, B., Fujimoto, J. G., & Duker, J. S.
Venue
Ophthalmology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-01
Volume
119
Issue
1
Pages
119-123
ISSN
0161-6420 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2104323245
Cited by
263
References
11
FWCI
21.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reproducibility of Choroidal Thickness Measurements Across Three Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography Systems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.07.002
The paper
Branchini, L., Regatieri, C. V., Flores-Moreno, I., Baumann, B., Fujimoto, J. G., & Duker, J. S. (2012). Reproducibility of Choroidal Thickness Measurements Across Three Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography Systems. Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.07.002

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.