The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Macular Thickness Measurements in Healthy Eyes Using Six Different Optical Coherence Tomography Instruments
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare central retinal thickness (CRT) measurements in healthy eyes by different commercially available OCT instruments and to compare the intersession reproducibility of such measurements. METHODS: Six different OCT instruments (Stratus OCT [Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc. Dublin, CA], SOCT Copernicus [Reichert/Optopol Technology, Inc., Depew, NY], Spectral OCT/SLO [Opko/OTI, Inc., Miami, FL], RTVue-100 [Optovue Corp., Fremont, CA], Spectralis HRA+OCT [Heidelberg Engineering, Inc., Heidelberg, Germany], and Cirrus HD-OCT [Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc.]) were used to assess CRT in both eyes of healthy subjects. Measurements were performed in two different sessions on the same day with each of the systems. From these measurements, the mean CRT was calculated. For the assessment of the intersession reproducibility of the instruments, we calculated the coefficient of the variation of test-retest variation. RESULTS: Twenty healthy subjects were included in the study. Compared with the Stratus OCT all spectral OCT instruments showed significantly higher CRTs. The Spectralis HRA+OCT and Cirrus HD-OCT showed similar CRT values but significantly higher values than did all other instruments. The coefficients of variation for repeated measurements was 3.33% for the Stratus OCT, 0.46% for the Spectralis HRA+OCT, 3.09% for the Cirrus HD-OCT, 2.23% for the OCT/SLO, 2.77% for the RTVue-100 OCT, and for the SOCT 3.5%, respectively. discussion. The six OCT systems provided different results for CRT. The measurements with the Stratus OCT showed the lowest thicknesses, whereas those with the Cirrus HD-OCT and Spectralis HRA+OCT yielded the highest ones. These discrepancies can be explained by the differences in the retinal segmentation algorithms used by the various OCT systems. Whereas the Spectralis HRA+OCT and Cirrus HD-OCT include the RPE layer in the retinal segmentation, the other instruments do not. The data imply that the different OCT systems cannot be used interchangeably for the measurement of macular thickness.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Regillo, C. D., Brown, D. M., Abraham, P., Yue, H., Ianchulev, T., Schneider, S., & Shams, N. (2008) · American Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2007.10.004 · Cited by 858
Cited by
Optical coherence tomography (OCT): principle and technical realization
Aumann, S., Donner, S., Fischer, J., & Müller, F. (2019) · High Resolution Imaging in Microscopy and Ophthalmology · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-16638-0_3 · Cited by 449
Mitchell, P., Korobelnik, J.-F., Lanzetta, P., Holz, F. G., Prunte, C., Schmidt-Erfurth, U., Tano, Y., & Wolf, S. (2010) · British Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1136/bjo.2009.159160 · Cited by 295
Self-citationBranchini, L., Regatieri, C. V., Flores-Moreno, I., Baumann, B., Fujimoto, J. G., & Duker, J. S. (2012) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.07.002 · Cited by 263
Zhu, M., Chew, J. K., Broadhead, G. K., Luo, K., Joachim, N., Hong, T., Syed, A., & Chang, A. A. (2015) · Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology · doi:10.1007/s00417-014-2799-8 · Cited by 38
Metadata
- Authors
- Wolf-Schnurrbusch, U. E. K., Ceklic, L., Brinkmann, C. K., Iliev, M. E., Frey, M., Rothenbuehler, S. P., Enzmann, V., & Wolf, S.
- Venue
- Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
- Published
- 2009-07-01
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 3432
- ISSN
- 0146-0404 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-5783
- OpenAlex
- W1970789407
- Cited by
- 424
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 40.23
- 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
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.
