Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 289

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

Reproducibility of Retinal Nerve Fiber Thickness Measurements Using the Stratus OCT in Normal and Glaucomatous Eyes

Budenz, Donald L., Chang, Robert T., Huang, Xiangrun, Knighton, Robert W., Tielsch, James M.·2005·Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the reproducibility of Stratus Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) measurements around the optic nerve in normal and glaucomatous eyes. METHODS: One eye was chosen at random from 88 normal subjects and 59 glaucomatous subjects distributed among mild, moderate, and severe glaucoma, determined by visual field testing. Subjects underwent six RNFL thickness measurements performed by a single operator over a 30-minute period with a brief rest between sessions. Three scans were taken with the high-density Standard RNFL protocol, and three were taken with the Fast RNFL protocol, alternating between scan protocols. RESULTS: Reliability, as measured by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), was calculated for the overall mean RNFL thickness and for each quadrant. The ICC for the mean Standard RNFL thickness (and lower 95% confidence interval [CI]) in normal and glaucomatous eyes was 0.97 (0.96 CI) and 0.98 (0.97 CI), respectively. The ICC for the mean Fast RNFL thickness in normal and glaucomatous eyes was 0.95 (0.93 CI) and 0.97 (0.95 CI), respectively. Quadrant ICCs ranged between 0.79 and 0.97, with the nasal quadrant being the least reproducible of all four quadrants, using either the Standard or Fast RNFL program. The test-retest variability ranged from 3.5 microm for the average RNFL thickness measurements in normal eyes to 13.8 microm for the nasal quadrant measurements in glaucomatous eyes, which appeared to be the most variable. CONCLUSIONS: Reproducibility of RNFL measurements using the Stratus OCT is excellent in normal and glaucomatous eyes. The nasal quadrant appears to be the most variable measurement. Standard RNFL and Fast RNFL scans are equally reproducible and yield comparable measurements. These findings have implications for the diagnosis of glaucoma and glaucomatous progression.

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 · 10.1167/iovs.04-1174

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 289

Metadata

Authors
Budenz, D. L., Chang, R. T., Huang, X., Knighton, R. W., & Tielsch, J. M.
Venue
Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
Published
2005-07-01
Volume
46
Issue
7
Pages
2440
ISSN
  • 0146-0404 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-5783
OpenAlex
W2043777090
Cited by
289
References
11
FWCI
16.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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 Retinal Nerve Fiber Thickness Measurements Using the Stratus OCT in Normal and Glaucomatous Eyes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1167/iovs.04-1174
The paper
Budenz, D. L., Chang, R. T., Huang, X., Knighton, R. W., & Tielsch, J. M. (2005). Reproducibility of Retinal Nerve Fiber Thickness Measurements Using the Stratus OCT in Normal and Glaucomatous Eyes. Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.04-1174

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.