Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-65243-2
Title: Agreement in Measures of Macular Perfusion between Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography Machines
Authors: Dai, W.
Chee, M.-L.
Majithia, S.
Teo, C.L.
Thakur, S.
Cheung, N. 
Rim, T.H. 
Tan, G.S. 
Sabanayagam, C. 
Cheng, C.-Y. 
Tham, Y.-C. 
Issue Date: 2020
Publisher: Nature Research
Citation: Dai, W., Chee, M.-L., Majithia, S., Teo, C.L., Thakur, S., Cheung, N., Rim, T.H., Tan, G.S., Sabanayagam, C., Cheng, C.-Y., Tham, Y.-C. (2020). Agreement in Measures of Macular Perfusion between Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography Machines. Scientific Reports 10 (1) : 8345. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-65243-2
Rights: Attribution 4.0 International
Abstract: We evaluated the agreements in foveal avascular zone (FAZ) area and vessel density (VD) parameters (within the superficial capillary plexus region), between two widely used optical coherence tomography angiography machines. Participants who attended the Singapore Malay Eye Study III between 29th March and 6th August 2018, were enrolled in this study. Participants underwent fovea-centered 6×6-mm macular cube scan, using both AngioVue and Cirrus HDOCT machines. Scans were analyzed automatically using built-in review software of each machine. 177 eyes (95 participants) without retinal diseases were included for final analysis. Mean FAZ area was 0.38 ± 0.11 mm2 and 0.30 ± 0.10 mm2, based on AngioVue and Cirrus HDOCT, respectively. Mean parafoveal VD was 0.50 ± 0.04 in Angiovue, and 0.43 ± 0.04 in Cirrus HDOCT. Cirrus HDOCT measurements were consistently lower than those by AngioVue, with a mean difference of ?0.08 (95% limits of agreement [LOA], ?0.30–0.13) mm2 for FAZ area, and ?0.07 (95% LOA, ?0.17–0.03) for parafoveal VD. Intraclass correlation coefficients for FAZ area and parafoveal VD were 0.33 and 0.07, respectively. Our data suggest that agreements between AngioVue and Cirrus HDOCT machines were poor to fair, thus alternating use between these two machines may not be recommended especially for follow up evaluations. © 2020, The Author(s).
Source Title: Scientific Reports
URI: https://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/199347
ISSN: 20452322
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-65243-2
Rights: Attribution 4.0 International
Appears in Collections:Elements
Staff Publications

Show full item record
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormatAccess SettingsVersion 
10_1038_s41598_020_65243_2.pdf1.68 MBAdobe PDF

OPEN

NoneView/Download

Page view(s)

28
checked on Dec 2, 2021

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons