data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2c3fd/2c3fd2c05ec175716150fd2054ac6d9c19b5c66f" alt="open-access-img"
Repeatability, reproducibility and agreement of foveal avascular zone measurements using three different optical coherence tomography angiography devices
Author(s) -
Nataša Mihailovic,
Cristin Brand,
Larissa Lahme,
Friederike Schubert,
Eike Bormann,
Nicole Eter,
Maged Alnawaiseh
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
plos one
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.99
H-Index - 332
ISSN - 1932-6203
DOI - 10.1371/journal.pone.0206045
Subject(s) - repeatability , reproducibility , foveal avascular zone , optical coherence tomography , ophthalmology , optical coherence tomography angiography , foveal , medicine , limits of agreement , nuclear medicine , optics , physics , mathematics , retinal , statistics
Purpose To evaluate the repeatability, the reproducibility and the agreement of foveal avascular zone (FAZ) measurements using three different optical coherence tomography angiography (OCT-A) devices. Procedures This prospective study included 24 eyes of 24 healthy volunteers. OCT-A imaging was performed using RTVue XR Avanti, Canon OCT-HS100 and Spectralis OCT-A. Repeated measurements were performed under the same conditions on two separate days, and the area of the FAZ was determined and analyzed using the above devices. Results All three devices showed a high ICC and there was no significant difference between the ICCs (pairwise comparison) of the three devices (Optovue–Canon (p = 0.66); Canon–Heidelberg (p = 0.21); Heidelberg–Optovue (p = 0.37). Agreement analysis of the three devices revealed a significant elevation of FAZ area values with the Heidelberg device and a slight underestimation of the FAZ area with the Canon device. Nevertheless, overall we found a high level of agreement between all of the three devices (ICC ≥ 0.958 (0.905–0.982)). Conclusions Good reproducibility and repeatability were observed for all three devices. However, the agreement analysis revealed slight, but significant differences, which might limit alternating use of these devices for clinical research and follow-up examinations.