Comparing ophthalmoscopy, slide viewing, and semiautomated systems in optic disc morphometry.

PURPOSE To compare disc measurements obtained by indirect ophthalmoscopy, the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph (HRT), stereoscopic slide viewing (SSV) of color transparencies, and the Topcon ImageNet System (ImageNet). DESIGN Population-based cross-sectional study. METHODS From the Rotterdam Study, 324 subjects (567 eyes) were nonselectively included. All underwent a full ophthalmologic examination in mydriasis. Vertical cup/disc ratios (VCDRs) were compared between all four methods and disc area (mm(2)), neural rim area (mm(2)), cup area (mm(2)), and cup volume (mm(3)) between HRT and ImageNet. RESULTS Mean VCDR for ophthalmoscopy was 0.25 (standard error [SE], 0.007), for HRT 0.42 (SE, 0.008), for SSV 0.39 (SE, 0.010), and for ImageNet 0.50 (SE, 0.006). The correlation for VCDR between ophthalmoscopy, the two devices, and SSV was 0.42, respectively 0.57; between ImageNet and HRT 0.75. The 97.5th percentiles of the VCDR for ophthalmoscopy, HRT, SSV, and ImageNet were 0.80, 0.73, 0.80, and 0.73, respectively; the 99.5th percentiles thus were 0.90, 0.79, 0.86, and 0.79. The mean disc area, rim area, cup area, and cup volume were 2.08, 1.63, 0.45 mm(2) and 0.09 mm(3) for HRT, and 2.39, 1.77, 0.61 mm(2) and 0.16 mm(3) for ImageNet, respectively. The corresponding correlations for these four parameters were 0.67, 0.42, 0.81, and 0.82. CONCLUSIONS Different techniques lead to considerable differences in disc morphometric values. ImageNet produced higher mean values compared with HRT and ophthalmoscopy. Ophthalmoscopy showed the lowest correlations and SSV the highest ones with the two semiautomated devices. Between ImageNet and HRT the correlation for all parameters was high except for the neural rim area.

[1]  R Varma,et al.  Agreement between clinicians and an image analyzer in estimating cup-to-disc ratios. , 1989, Archives of ophthalmology.

[2]  P. Pawson,et al.  Vertical optic disk diameter: discrepancy between planimetric and SLO measurements. , 1995, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[3]  Jost B Jonas,et al.  Comparison of measurements of neuroretinal rim area between confocal laser scanning tomography and planimetry of photographs , 1998, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[4]  P. Lichter Variability of expert observers in evaluating the optic disc. , 1976, Transactions of the American Ophthalmological Society.

[5]  J. Jonas,et al.  Comparison between tomographic scanning evaluation and photographic measurement of the neuroretinal rim. , 1996, American journal of ophthalmology.

[6]  I. Scott,et al.  Expert agreement in evaluating the optic disc for glaucoma. , 1992, Ophthalmology.

[7]  J. Jonas,et al.  Ranking of optic disc variables for detection of glaucomatous optic nerve damage. , 2000, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[8]  R. Burk,et al.  Comparison of optic disc measurements by Heidelberg Retina Tomograph and manual planimetric techniques. , 2009, Acta ophthalmologica Scandinavica.

[9]  A. Hofman,et al.  Determinants of optic disc characteristics in a general population: The Rotterdam Study. , 1999, Ophthalmology.

[10]  J. Jonas,et al.  Optic disc, cup and neuroretinal rim size, configuration and correlations in normal eyes. , 1988, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[11]  V. Malinovsky,et al.  An overview of the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph. , 1996, Journal of the American Optometric Association.

[12]  A. Sommer,et al.  Race-, age-, gender-, and refractive error-related differences in the normal optic disc. , 1994, Archives of ophthalmology.

[13]  A. Sommer,et al.  Intraobserver and interobserver agreement in measurement of optic disc characteristics. , 1988, Ophthalmology.

[14]  A. Hofman,et al.  Cup-to-disc ratio: ophthalmoscopy versus automated measurement in a general population: The Rotterdam Study. , 1999, Ophthalmology.

[15]  J. Funk,et al.  Optic nerve head analyzer and Heidelberg retina tomograph: relative error and reproducibility of topographic measurements in a model eye with simulated cataract , 1995, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.

[16]  A. Hofman,et al.  Changing views on open-angle glaucoma: definitions and prevalences--The Rotterdam Study. , 2000, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[17]  A. Beckett,et al.  AKUFO AND IBARAPA. , 1965, Lancet.

[18]  Augusto Azuara-Blanco,et al.  Reproducibility of Optic Disk Topographic Measurements with the Topcon ImageNet and the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph , 1998, Ophthalmologica.

[19]  R N Weinreb,et al.  Agreement between clinicians and a confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope in estimating cup/disk ratios. , 1995, American journal of ophthalmology.

[20]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.