三种手持式眼底相机评估垂直杯盘比的比较。

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY Ophthalmic epidemiology Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-28 DOI:10.1080/09286586.2023.2260877
Jasmeet Saroya, Louisa Lu, Somsanguan Ausayakhun, Sakarin Ausayakhun, Preeyanuch Khunsongkiet, Atitaya Apivatthakakul, Catherine Q Sun, Tyson N Kim, Michele Lee, Edmund Tsui, Plern Sutra, Jeremy D Keenan
{"title":"三种手持式眼底相机评估垂直杯盘比的比较。","authors":"Jasmeet Saroya, Louisa Lu, Somsanguan Ausayakhun, Sakarin Ausayakhun, Preeyanuch Khunsongkiet, Atitaya Apivatthakakul, Catherine Q Sun, Tyson N Kim, Michele Lee, Edmund Tsui, Plern Sutra, Jeremy D Keenan","doi":"10.1080/09286586.2023.2260877","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Purpose To compare the quality of optic nerve photographs from three different handheld fundus cameras and to assess the reproducibility and agreement of vertical cup-to-disk ratio (VCDR) measurements from each camera. Methods Adult patients from a comprehensive ophthalmology clinic and an intravitreous injection clinic in northern Thailand were recruited for this cross-sectional study. Each participant had optic nerve photography performed with each of 3 handheld cameras: the Volk iNview, Volk Pictor Plus, and Peek Retina. Images were graded for VCDR in a masked fashion by two photo-graders and images with > 0.2 discrepancy in VCDR were assessed by a third photo-grader. Results A total of 355 eyes underwent imaging with three different handheld fundus cameras. Optic nerve images were judged ungradable in 130 (37%) eyes imaged with Peek Retina, compared to 36 (10%) and 55 (15%) eyes imaged with the iNview and Pictor Plus, respectively. For 193 eyes with gradable images from all 3 cameras, inter-rater reliability for VCDR measurements was poor or moderate for each of the cameras, with intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.41 to 0.52. A VCDR ≥ 0.6 was found in 6 eyes on iNview images, 9 eyes on Pictor Plus images, and 3 eyes on Peek images, with poor agreement between cameras (e.g., no eyes graded as VCDR ≥ 0.6 on images from both the iNview and Pictor Plus). Conclusions Inter-rater reliability of VCDR grades from 3 handheld cameras was poor. Cameras did not agree on which eyes had large VCDRs.</p>","PeriodicalId":19607,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmic epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":"311-314"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Three Handheld Fundus Cameras for Assessment of the Vertical Cup-To-Disk Ratio.\",\"authors\":\"Jasmeet Saroya, Louisa Lu, Somsanguan Ausayakhun, Sakarin Ausayakhun, Preeyanuch Khunsongkiet, Atitaya Apivatthakakul, Catherine Q Sun, Tyson N Kim, Michele Lee, Edmund Tsui, Plern Sutra, Jeremy D Keenan\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09286586.2023.2260877\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Purpose To compare the quality of optic nerve photographs from three different handheld fundus cameras and to assess the reproducibility and agreement of vertical cup-to-disk ratio (VCDR) measurements from each camera. Methods Adult patients from a comprehensive ophthalmology clinic and an intravitreous injection clinic in northern Thailand were recruited for this cross-sectional study. Each participant had optic nerve photography performed with each of 3 handheld cameras: the Volk iNview, Volk Pictor Plus, and Peek Retina. Images were graded for VCDR in a masked fashion by two photo-graders and images with > 0.2 discrepancy in VCDR were assessed by a third photo-grader. Results A total of 355 eyes underwent imaging with three different handheld fundus cameras. Optic nerve images were judged ungradable in 130 (37%) eyes imaged with Peek Retina, compared to 36 (10%) and 55 (15%) eyes imaged with the iNview and Pictor Plus, respectively. For 193 eyes with gradable images from all 3 cameras, inter-rater reliability for VCDR measurements was poor or moderate for each of the cameras, with intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.41 to 0.52. A VCDR ≥ 0.6 was found in 6 eyes on iNview images, 9 eyes on Pictor Plus images, and 3 eyes on Peek images, with poor agreement between cameras (e.g., no eyes graded as VCDR ≥ 0.6 on images from both the iNview and Pictor Plus). Conclusions Inter-rater reliability of VCDR grades from 3 handheld cameras was poor. Cameras did not agree on which eyes had large VCDRs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19607,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ophthalmic epidemiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"311-314\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ophthalmic epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09286586.2023.2260877\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmic epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09286586.2023.2260877","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的比较三种不同手持式眼底相机拍摄的视神经照片的质量,并评估每种相机垂直杯盘比(VCDR)测量的再现性和一致性。方法从泰国北部一家综合眼科诊所和一家玻璃体内注射诊所招募成年患者进行横断面研究。每个参与者都使用3台手持相机进行了视神经摄影:Volk iNview、Volk Pictor Plus和Peek Retina。两名照片分级员对VCDR图像进行掩蔽分级,第三名照片分级人员对VCDR差异大于0.2的图像进行评估。结果共355眼采用三种不同的手持式眼底相机进行了成像。在130只(37%)用Peek Retina成像的眼睛中,视神经图像被判定为不可解码,而在iNview和Pictor Plus成像的眼睛分别为36只(10%)和55只(15%)。对于193只具有来自所有3台相机的可分级图像的眼睛,每个相机的VCDR测量的评分者间可靠性较差或中等,组内相关系数在0.41至0.52之间。在iNview图像上有6只眼睛、Pictor Plus图像上有9只眼睛和Peek图像上有3只眼睛的VCDR≥0.6,相机之间的一致性较差(例如,在iNview和Pictor Plus的图像上没有一只眼睛被评为VCDR≥0.6%)。结论3台手持式摄像机VCDR分级的评分者间信度较差。相机对哪只眼睛有大的VCDR并不一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of Three Handheld Fundus Cameras for Assessment of the Vertical Cup-To-Disk Ratio.

Purpose To compare the quality of optic nerve photographs from three different handheld fundus cameras and to assess the reproducibility and agreement of vertical cup-to-disk ratio (VCDR) measurements from each camera. Methods Adult patients from a comprehensive ophthalmology clinic and an intravitreous injection clinic in northern Thailand were recruited for this cross-sectional study. Each participant had optic nerve photography performed with each of 3 handheld cameras: the Volk iNview, Volk Pictor Plus, and Peek Retina. Images were graded for VCDR in a masked fashion by two photo-graders and images with > 0.2 discrepancy in VCDR were assessed by a third photo-grader. Results A total of 355 eyes underwent imaging with three different handheld fundus cameras. Optic nerve images were judged ungradable in 130 (37%) eyes imaged with Peek Retina, compared to 36 (10%) and 55 (15%) eyes imaged with the iNview and Pictor Plus, respectively. For 193 eyes with gradable images from all 3 cameras, inter-rater reliability for VCDR measurements was poor or moderate for each of the cameras, with intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.41 to 0.52. A VCDR ≥ 0.6 was found in 6 eyes on iNview images, 9 eyes on Pictor Plus images, and 3 eyes on Peek images, with poor agreement between cameras (e.g., no eyes graded as VCDR ≥ 0.6 on images from both the iNview and Pictor Plus). Conclusions Inter-rater reliability of VCDR grades from 3 handheld cameras was poor. Cameras did not agree on which eyes had large VCDRs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ophthalmic epidemiology
Ophthalmic epidemiology 医学-眼科学
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
61
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Ophthalmic Epidemiology is dedicated to the publication of original research into eye and vision health in the fields of epidemiology, public health and the prevention of blindness. Ophthalmic Epidemiology publishes editorials, original research reports, systematic reviews and meta-analysis articles, brief communications and letters to the editor on all subjects related to ophthalmic epidemiology. A broad range of topics is suitable, such as: evaluating the risk of ocular diseases, general and specific study designs, screening program implementation and evaluation, eye health care access, delivery and outcomes, therapeutic efficacy or effectiveness, disease prognosis and quality of life, cost-benefit analysis, biostatistical theory and risk factor analysis. We are looking to expand our engagement with reports of international interest, including those regarding problems affecting developing countries, although reports from all over the world potentially are suitable. Clinical case reports, small case series (not enough for a cohort analysis) articles and animal research reports are not appropriate for this journal.
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of a Risk Screening Tool for Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) in a German Cohort. Feasibility and Patient Experience of a Pilot Artificial Intelligence-Based Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Program in Northern Ontario. Binocular Visual Field Loss and Crash Risk: An eFOVID Population-Based Study. Prevalence of Diabetic Retinopathy and Dilated Fundus Examinations by Metropolitan Status from 2017-2021: An Assessment of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Weather Patterns, Patient, and Appointment Characteristics Associated with Cancellations and No-Shows in a Glaucoma Clinic.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1