Background/aims To establish a consensus in the nomenclature for reporting optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA findings in uveitis.
Methods The modified Delphi process consisted of two rounds of electronic questionnaires, followed by a face-to-face meeting conducted virtually. Twenty-one items were included for discussion. The three main areas of discussion were: wide field OCTA (WF-OCTA), nomenclature of OCTA findings and OCTA signal attenuation assessment and measurement. Seventeen specialists in uveitis and retinal imaging were selected by the executive committee to constitute the OCTA nomenclature in Uveitis Delphi Study Group. The study endpoint was defined by the degree of consensus for each question: ‘strong consensus’ was defined as >90% agreement, ‘consensus’ as 85%–90% and ‘near consensus’ as >80% but <85%.
Results There was a strong consensus to apply the term ‘wide field’ to OCTA images measuring over 70° of field of view, to use the terms ‘flow deficit’ and ‘non-detectable flow signal’ to describe abnormal OCTA flow signal secondary to slow flow and to vessels displacement respectively, to use the terms ‘loose’ and ‘dense’ to describe the appearance of inflammatory choroidal neovascularisation, and to use the percentage of flow signal decrease to measure OCTA ischaemia with a threshold greater than or equal to 30% as a ‘large area’.
Conclusions This study sets up consensus recommendations for reporting OCTA findings in uveitis by an expert panel, which may prove suitable for use in routine clinical care and clinical trials.
Data availability statement
No data are available.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Correction notice This paper has been amended since it was first published. The second author's surname has been corrected. In the abstract and discussion the following section has been updated to read 'to use the terms ’flow deficit’ and ’non- detectable flow signal’ to describe abnormal OCTA flow signal secondary to slow flow and to vessels displacement respectively'.
Contributors FP, ECS and MRM: conception or design of the work. FP and ECS: drafting of the work. CP, AKD, DSG, GD, MK, MR-C, JRdOD, AA, TB, AI, AS, MT, AKA, WRT, HNS, PL, LLL, KLP: revising it critically for important intellectual content. CP, AKD, DSG, GD, MK, MR-C, JRdOD, AA, DB, AI, AS, MT, AKA, WRT, HNS, PL, LLL, KLP: final approval of the version to be published. FP is guarantor.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.