HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Supplementary Table All Versions of this Article: iovs.08-1881v1 50/2/560    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (4) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Glassman, A. R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Glassman, A. R.

Comparison of Optical Coherence Tomography in Diabetic Macular Edema, with and without Reading Center Manual Grading from a Clinical Trials Perspective

¹From the Jaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, Florida; ²Charlotte Eye Ear Nose and Throat Associates, PA, Charlotte, North Carolina; and the ³Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.

PURPOSE. To analyze the value of reading center error correction in automated optical coherence tomography (OCT; Stratus; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, CA) retinal thickness measurements in eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS. OCT scans (n = 6522) obtained in seven Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network (DRCR.net) studies were analyzed. The reading center evaluated whether the automated center point measurement appeared correct, and when it did not, measured it manually with calipers. Center point standard deviation (SD) as a percentage of thickness, center point thickness, signal strength, and analysis confidence were evaluated for their association with an automated measurement error (manual measurement needed and exceeded 12% of automated thickness). Curves were constructed for each factor by plotting the error rate against the proportion of scans sent to the reading center. The impact of measurement error on interpretation of clinical trial results and statistical power was also assessed.

RESULTS. SD was the best predictor of an automated measurement error. The other three variables did not augment the ability to predict an error using SD alone. Based on SD, an error rate of 5% or less could be achieved by sending only 33% of scans to the reading center (those with an SD 5%). Correcting automated errors had no appreciable effect on the interpretation of results from a completed randomized trial and had little impact on a trial’s statistical power.

CONCLUSIONS. In DME clinical trials, the error involved with using automated Stratus OCT center point measurements is sufficiently small that results are not likely to be affected if scans are not routinely sent to a reading center, provided adequate quality control measures are in place.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. R. Sadda, P. A. Keane, Y. Ouyang, J. F. Updike, and A. C. Walsh Impact of Scanning Density on Measurements from Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., February 1, 2010; 51(2): 1071 - 1078. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Domalpally, B. A. Blodi, I. U. Scott, M. S. Ip, N. L. Oden, A. K. Lauer, P. C. VanVeldhuisen, and for the SCORE Study Investigator Group The Standard Care vs Corticosteroid for Retinal Vein Occlusion (SCORE) Study System for Evaluation of Optical Coherence Tomograms: SCORE Study Report 4 Arch Ophthalmol, November 1, 2009; 127(11): 1461 - 1467. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P A Keane, P S Mand, S Liakopoulos, A C Walsh, and S R Sadda Accuracy of retinal thickness measurements obtained with Cirrus optical coherence tomography Br J Ophthalmol, November 1, 2009; 93(11): 1461 - 1467. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. A. Keane, S. Liakopoulos, R. V. Jivrajka, K. T. Chang, T. Alasil, A. C. Walsh, and S. R. Sadda Evaluation of Optical Coherence Tomography Retinal Thickness Parameters for Use in Clinical Trials for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., July 1, 2009; 50(7): 3378 - 3385. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]