The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness Reproducibility Using Seven Different OCT Instruments
Abstract
PURPOSE: The clinical utility of new optical coherence tomography (OCT) instruments strongly depends on measurements reproducibility. The aim of this study was to assess retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness reproducibility using six different spectral-domain OCTs (SD-OCTs) and one time-domain OCT. METHODS: RNFL thickness (average and four quadrant) from six SD-OCTs (Spectral OCT/SLO OPKO/OTI, 3D-OCT 2000 Topcon, RS-3000 NIDEK, Cirrus HD-OCT Zeiss, RTVue-100 Optovue, and Spectralis Heidelberg) and one time-domain OCT (Stratus OCT Zeiss) was measured twice in 38 right eyes of 38 randomly chosen healthy volunteers by two masked operators. Inter- and intraoperator reproducibility was evaluated by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), coefficient of variation (CV), and Bland-Altman test analysis. Instrument-to-instrument reproducibility was determined by ANOVA for repeated measures. We also tested how the devices disagree in terms of systemic bias and random error using a structural equation model. RESULTS: Mean RNFL average thickness ranged from 90.08 μm to 106.51 μm. Cirrus and Heidelberg showed the thinnest RNFL values in all measurements, Topcon the highest. ICC, CV, and Bland-Altman plots showed variable inter- and intraoperator agreement depending on the instrument. Heidelberg demonstrated the best interoperator (ICC, 0.92; CV, 1.56%) and intraoperator (ICC, 0.94 and 0.95; CV, 1.28% and 1.26%, respectively, for operator A and operator B) agreement for average RNFL thickness. CONCLUSIONS: Heidelberg demonstrated the higher agreement in inter- and intraoperator reproducibility, Optovue the worst. In light of our error analysis results, we found that a scale bias among instruments could interfere with a thorough RNFL monitoring, suggesting that best monitoring is obtained with the same operator and the same device.
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
Cited by
OCT for glaucoma diagnosis, screening and detection of glaucoma progression
Bussel, I. I., Wollstein, G., & Schuman, J. S. (2014) · British Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-304326 · Cited by 441
Lin, T.-Y., Motamedi, S., Asseyer, S., Chien, C., Saidha, S., Calabresi, P. A., Fitzgerald, K. C., Samadzadeh, S., Villoslada, P., Llufriu, S., et al. (2024) · Neurology Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation · doi:10.1212/nxi.0000000000200269 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Pierro, L., Gagliardi, M., Iuliano, L., Ambrosi, A., & Bandello, F.
- Venue
- Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
- Published
- 2012-08-31
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 5912
- ISSN
- 0146-0404 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-5783
- OpenAlex
- W1978234346
- Cited by
- 159
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.76
- 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: Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness Reproducibility Using Seven Different OCT Instruments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1167/iovs.11-8644
- The paper
- Pierro, L., Gagliardi, M., Iuliano, L., Ambrosi, A., & Bandello, F. (2012). Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness Reproducibility Using Seven Different OCT Instruments. Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.11-8644
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.