The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Repeatability of Manual Subfoveal Choroidal Thickness Measurements in Healthy Subjects Using the Technique of Enhanced Depth Imaging Optical Coherence Tomography
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the repeatability of manual measurements of choroidal thickness in healthy subjects imaged on spectral domain optical coherence tomography (OCT) using the enhanced depth imaging (EDI) technique. METHODS: Fifty consecutive, healthy, young, adult volunteers with no known eye disease were enrolled prospectively. Two good-quality horizontal and vertical line scans through the fovea were obtained for each eye. Using the manual calipers provided by the software of the proprietary device, two experienced OCT readers measured the subfoveal choroidal thickness (SFCT) of the horizontal and vertical line scans for all eyes. The readers were masked to each other's readings. Intraobserver, interobserver, and intrasession coefficients of repeatability (CRs) were calculated. RESULTS: Mean (standard deviation [SD]) age of the study subjects was 38 (5) years (range, 30-49 years). Mean (SD) subfoveal choroidal thickness was 332 (90) μm (right eyes) and 332 (91) μm (left eyes). Intraobserver CR was approximately 23 (95% confidence interval [CI], 19-26) μm, whereas interobserver and intrasession CRs were greater at 32 (95% CI, 30-34) and 34 (95% CI, 32-36) μm, respectively. There was no significant difference in SFCT between all pairs of SFCT measurements except for the two intrasession vertical line scans. CONCLUSION: A change of >32 μm was likely to exceed interobserver variability in SFCT. Future studies are required to estimate the repeatability of SFCT measurements in patients with chorioretinal pathology.
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
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Cited by
Tan, C. S., Ouyang, Y., Ruiz, H., & Sadda, S. R. (2012) · Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science · doi:10.1167/iovs.11-8782 · Cited by 784
Subfoveal Choroidal Thickness: The Beijing Eye Study
Wei, W. B., Xu, L., Jonas, J. B., Shao, L., Du, K. F., Wang, S., Chen, C. X., Xu, J., Wang, Y. X., Zhou, J. Q., et al. (2013) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.07.048 · Cited by 599
The suprachoroidal space: from potential space to a space with potential
Moisseiev, E., Loewenstein, A., & Yiu, G. (2016) · Clinical Ophthalmology · doi:10.2147/opth.s89784 · Cited by 76
Drug delivery via the suprachoroidal space for the treatment of retinal diseases
Naftali Ben Haim, L., & Moisseiev, E. (2021) · Pharmaceutics · doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics13070967 · Cited by 68
Bruch’s Membrane and the Choroid in Age-Related Macular Degeneration
Edwards, M., & Lutty, G. A. (2021) · Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-66014-7_4 · Cited by 32
Metadata
- Authors
- Rahman, W., Chen, F. K., Yeoh, J., Patel, P., Tufail, A., & Da Cruz, L.
- Venue
- Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
- Published
- 2011-04-08
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 2267
- ISSN
- 0146-0404 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-5783
- OpenAlex
- W2047715625
- Cited by
- 293
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 22.09
- 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.