自成像OCT用于视网膜疾病远程诊断和监测的评估。

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY British Journal of Ophthalmology Pub Date : 2024-07-23 DOI:10.1136/bjo-2023-324012
Zitian Liu, Wenyong Huang, Zhenyu Wang, Ling Jin, Nathan Congdon, Yingfeng Zheng, Shida Chen, Yizhi Liu
{"title":"自成像OCT用于视网膜疾病远程诊断和监测的评估。","authors":"Zitian Liu, Wenyong Huang, Zhenyu Wang, Ling Jin, Nathan Congdon, Yingfeng Zheng, Shida Chen, Yizhi Liu","doi":"10.1136/bjo-2023-324012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of a portable, self-imaging optical coherence tomography (OCT) for measuring central subfield thickness (CST) and achieving diagnostic concordance for retinal lesions compared with clinic-based spectral-domain OCT (SD-OCT).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This comparative, cross-sectional study was conducted between August 2020 and February 2021. Two groups of adult participants were recruited: (1) a selected cohort of 160 participants with confirmed diagnosis and (2) a consecutive cohort of 315 participants recruited randomly. All participants underwent self-imaging OCT examination, as well as standard OCT examination. CST was automatically calculated for comparisons between the two OCT devices. Diagnostic concordance for retinal lesions and the success rate of self-imaging were assessed within the consecutive cohort.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the selected cohort, self-imaging OCT images yielded consistent CST with SD-OCT, with a mean difference of 0.1±7.7 µm for normal eyes, 4.9±10.6 µm for macular oedema, -1.3±9.5 µm for choroidal neovascularisation, 5.0±7.8 µm for epiretinal membrane. The self-imaging OCT also demonstrated good repeatability, with a mean test-retest difference in CST of 0.7±3.9 µm and limits of agreement ranging from -6.9 to 8.3 µm. Additionally, within the consecutive cohort, interdevice κ values ranged for detecting various retinal lesions ranged from 0.8 to 1.0, except in the cases of retinal detachment (κ=0.5). All eyes (100%) in the selected cohort and 242 eyes (76.8%) in the consecutive cohort successfully completed self-imaging. Participants spent less time on self-imaging compared with SD-OCT operated by a technician (66.7±20.1 vs 73.3±32.5, p<0.01). A majority of participants (90%) found the self-imaging process 'easy' and 'comfortable'.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>This study demonstrates that our self-imaging OCT and clinical-used SD-OCT are highly consistent not only in measuring the CST but also in identifying most retinal lesions.</p>","PeriodicalId":9313,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Ophthalmology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of a self-imaging OCT for remote diagnosis and monitoring of retinal diseases.\",\"authors\":\"Zitian Liu, Wenyong Huang, Zhenyu Wang, Ling Jin, Nathan Congdon, Yingfeng Zheng, Shida Chen, Yizhi Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bjo-2023-324012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of a portable, self-imaging optical coherence tomography (OCT) for measuring central subfield thickness (CST) and achieving diagnostic concordance for retinal lesions compared with clinic-based spectral-domain OCT (SD-OCT).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This comparative, cross-sectional study was conducted between August 2020 and February 2021. Two groups of adult participants were recruited: (1) a selected cohort of 160 participants with confirmed diagnosis and (2) a consecutive cohort of 315 participants recruited randomly. All participants underwent self-imaging OCT examination, as well as standard OCT examination. CST was automatically calculated for comparisons between the two OCT devices. Diagnostic concordance for retinal lesions and the success rate of self-imaging were assessed within the consecutive cohort.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the selected cohort, self-imaging OCT images yielded consistent CST with SD-OCT, with a mean difference of 0.1±7.7 µm for normal eyes, 4.9±10.6 µm for macular oedema, -1.3±9.5 µm for choroidal neovascularisation, 5.0±7.8 µm for epiretinal membrane. The self-imaging OCT also demonstrated good repeatability, with a mean test-retest difference in CST of 0.7±3.9 µm and limits of agreement ranging from -6.9 to 8.3 µm. Additionally, within the consecutive cohort, interdevice κ values ranged for detecting various retinal lesions ranged from 0.8 to 1.0, except in the cases of retinal detachment (κ=0.5). All eyes (100%) in the selected cohort and 242 eyes (76.8%) in the consecutive cohort successfully completed self-imaging. Participants spent less time on self-imaging compared with SD-OCT operated by a technician (66.7±20.1 vs 73.3±32.5, p<0.01). A majority of participants (90%) found the self-imaging process 'easy' and 'comfortable'.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>This study demonstrates that our self-imaging OCT and clinical-used SD-OCT are highly consistent not only in measuring the CST but also in identifying most retinal lesions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Ophthalmology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Ophthalmology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo-2023-324012\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo-2023-324012","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:与基于临床的光谱域OCT(SD-OCT)相比,评估便携式自成像光学相干断层扫描(OCT)测量中心亚场厚度(CST)并实现视网膜病变诊断一致性的可行性和准确性。方法:这项比较横断面研究于2020年8月至2021年2月进行。招募了两组成年参与者:(1)160名确诊参与者的选定队列和(2)随机招募的315名参与者的连续队列。所有参与者均接受了自成像OCT检查以及标准OCT检查。CST是为两个OCT装置之间的比较而自动计算的。在连续的队列中评估视网膜病变的诊断一致性和自我成像的成功率。结果:在选定的队列中,自成像OCT图像产生的CST与SD-OCT一致,平均差异为0.1±7.7 µm(正常眼睛),4.9±10.6 µm用于黄斑水肿,-1.3±9.5 µm用于脉络膜新生血管,5.0±7.8 µm用于视网膜前膜。自成像OCT也显示出良好的可重复性,CST的平均重测差异为0.7±3.9 µm,一致性范围从-6.9到8.3 µm。此外,在连续队列中,除视网膜脱离(κ=0.5)外,用于检测各种视网膜病变的设备间κ值范围为0.8至1.0。所选队列中的所有眼睛(100%)和连续队列中的242只眼睛(76.8%)成功完成了自成像。与技术人员操作的SD-OCT相比,参与者在自我成像上花费的时间更少(66.7±20.1 vs 73.3±32.5,P结论和相关性:本研究表明,我们的自我成像OCT和临床使用的SD-OCT不仅在测量CST方面,而且在识别大多数视网膜病变方面高度一致。
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
Evaluation of a self-imaging OCT for remote diagnosis and monitoring of retinal diseases.

Objectives: To evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of a portable, self-imaging optical coherence tomography (OCT) for measuring central subfield thickness (CST) and achieving diagnostic concordance for retinal lesions compared with clinic-based spectral-domain OCT (SD-OCT).

Methods: This comparative, cross-sectional study was conducted between August 2020 and February 2021. Two groups of adult participants were recruited: (1) a selected cohort of 160 participants with confirmed diagnosis and (2) a consecutive cohort of 315 participants recruited randomly. All participants underwent self-imaging OCT examination, as well as standard OCT examination. CST was automatically calculated for comparisons between the two OCT devices. Diagnostic concordance for retinal lesions and the success rate of self-imaging were assessed within the consecutive cohort.

Results: In the selected cohort, self-imaging OCT images yielded consistent CST with SD-OCT, with a mean difference of 0.1±7.7 µm for normal eyes, 4.9±10.6 µm for macular oedema, -1.3±9.5 µm for choroidal neovascularisation, 5.0±7.8 µm for epiretinal membrane. The self-imaging OCT also demonstrated good repeatability, with a mean test-retest difference in CST of 0.7±3.9 µm and limits of agreement ranging from -6.9 to 8.3 µm. Additionally, within the consecutive cohort, interdevice κ values ranged for detecting various retinal lesions ranged from 0.8 to 1.0, except in the cases of retinal detachment (κ=0.5). All eyes (100%) in the selected cohort and 242 eyes (76.8%) in the consecutive cohort successfully completed self-imaging. Participants spent less time on self-imaging compared with SD-OCT operated by a technician (66.7±20.1 vs 73.3±32.5, p<0.01). A majority of participants (90%) found the self-imaging process 'easy' and 'comfortable'.

Conclusions and relevance: This study demonstrates that our self-imaging OCT and clinical-used SD-OCT are highly consistent not only in measuring the CST but also in identifying most retinal lesions.

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
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
2.40%
发文量
213
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Ophthalmology (BJO) is an international peer-reviewed journal for ophthalmologists and visual science specialists. BJO publishes clinical investigations, clinical observations, and clinically relevant laboratory investigations related to ophthalmology. It also provides major reviews and also publishes manuscripts covering regional issues in a global context.
期刊最新文献
Impact of microorganism virulence on endophthalmitis outcomes Progressive inner retinal neurodegeneration in non-proliferative macular telangiectasia type 2 Effect of intravenous methylprednisolone on serum antibody levels in thyroid eye disease The aqueous humour dynamics in primary angle closure disease: a computational study Retinal curvature in Chinese children with myopia measured by ultra-widefield swept-source optical coherence tomography.
×
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