Cited by 67Retinal Diseases and TreatmentsRetinal Imaging and AnalysisReliability and Agreement in Measurement

Optical coherence tomography grading reproducibility during the Comparison of Age-related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials

Open access
DeCroos, Francis Char, Toth, Cynthia A., Stinnett, Sandra S., Heydary, Cynthia S., Burns, Russell, Jaffe, Glenn J.·2012·Ophthalmology

Abstract

Objective To report reading center reproducibility during grading of Stratus optical coherence tomography (OCT) (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA) images obtained during the Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials (CATT).Design Prospective, clinical trial.Participants Independent reading teams reevaluated 270 OCT scans randomly sampled from the first 2 years of CATT enrollment. To assess temporal drift, a cohort of 23 scans submitted during the initial portion of the CATT study was longitudinally followed with serial reproducibility analysis.Intervention The CATT readers performed standardized grading of OCT images. A reader team, composed of 2 independent readers and a senior reader, evaluated each scan. Grading included the CATT OCT end points of total thickness at the foveal center point and intraretinal fluid (IRF), subretinal fluid (SRF), and subretinal pigment epithelium (RPE) fluid. Independent reading teams masked to the results of initial grading reevaluated scans to determine the reproducibility of qualitative grading and measurements.Main outcome measures Categorical grading agreement was reported using percent agreement and kappa statistic, and measurement agreement was reported using intraclass correlations and paired differences.Results Reading center teams reproducibly graded IRF (percent agreement = 73%, kappa = 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-0.58), SRF (percent agreement = 90%; kappa = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.87), and sub-RPE fluid (percent agreement 88%; kappa = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.83). For independent reading center team measurements of total thickness at the foveal center point, the intraclass correlation was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.99-0.99), and the mean paired difference between reading center teams was 4 μm (95% limits of agreement, -55 to 47 μm). There was no qualitative or quantitative grading drift.Conclusions The standardized protocols used to evaluate OCT scans from the CATT study were reproducible. The methods used are suitable to monitor OCT imaging data from a large, neovascular age-related macular degeneration, interventional, multicenter study.Financial disclosure(s) The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

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.2012.06.040

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Director of Grading and the Reading Center Director stayed masked to subject identifiers and resolved reader disagreements.

    “The Director of Grading (CAT) and the Reading Center Director (GJJ) remained masked to subject identifiers and made final decisions on reader disagreements that remained controversial after arbitration.17”

    From Development and Course of Scars in the Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials (2018) · cites this paper as [17]

    The Materials and Methods section (Team Based Grading; page unavailable) says that findings still controversial after arbitration were forwarded to the Director of Grading for a final decision. It does not say that the Reading Center Director also made those decisions or that either director remained masked to subject identifiers; its masking statement concerns the initial readers. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
DeCroos, F. C., Toth, C. A., Stinnett, S. S., Heydary, C. S., Burns, R., & Jaffe, G. J.
Affiliations
  • Duke University (US)
  • Mid Atlantic Retina (US)
Corresponding author
Jaffe, Glenn J.
Venue
Ophthalmology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-12
Volume
119
Issue
12
Pages
2549-2557
ISSN
0161-6420 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2029010710
Cited by
67
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 7
FWCI
7.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ophthalmology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Heed Ophthalmic Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal Imaging and Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
Keywords
optical coherence tomography, age-related macular degeneration, neovascular AMD, interobserver agreement, intraretinal fluid, subretinal fluid, temporal drift, Stratus OCT
MeSH terms
Bevacizumab, Ranibizumab, Double-Blind Method, Humans, Macular Degeneration, Prospective Studies, Quality Control, Retina, Visual Acuity, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation, Epiretinal Membrane, Angiogenesis Inhibitors, Tomography, Optical Coherence, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A, Subretinal Fluid, Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized

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