English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The advent of powerful imaging techniques, such as HRT, GDx, and OCT, with their ability to elucidate the structural details of glaucomatous damage, is changing the practice of glaucoma diagnosis and management. These methods potentially hold the promise of more sensitive and specific determinations of glaucomatous progression than sequential visual field measurements or longitudinal follow-up with ophthalmoscopy or stereo-photography. However, before attributing a difference in a patient’s measurement to progression it is necessary to quantify the variability associated with test-retest variability (i.e. measurement “error”) for a given imaging technology. Experiments designed to evaluate test-retest variability usually follow the strategy of making consecutive measurements on an individual in a time period too short for glaucomatous progression to have occurred. This may be during the same measuring session, in a separate measuring session on the same day, and/or during a subsequent patient visit scheduled days or weeks following the initial measurement. One might expect that test-retest differences on different days would exceed those made during the same session, and this is a hypothesis that can be explicitly tested. 1 In addition to test-retest variability, studies of this type may also be used to assess the influence of different technicians or different machines. 2 The aim of this manuscript is to describe, and provide examples of, some of the common methods of analyzing and presenting these types of data: estimation of the test-retest standard deviation, the coefficient of variation, and the intraclass correlation coefficient. These will be contrasted with the Bland-Altman method of assessing agreement. None of these methods is ideally suited to all situations.

Quantifying the Reproducibility of Instruments in Glaucoma Imaging