You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Intraobserver variability of confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy with and without stereo photographs
  1. H T Nguyen1,
  2. K P Pikey1,
  3. S K Gardiner1,
  4. D Gritz2,
  5. R Krishnadas3,
  6. G A Cioffi1,
  7. S L Mansberger1
  1. 1
    Devers Eye Institute/Discoveries in Sight, Portland, Oregon, USA
  2. 2
    Eye Foundation of Kansas, Kansas City, Kansas, USA
  3. 3
    Aravind Eye Hospitals and Postgraduate Institute of Ophthalmology, Madurai, India
  1. Correspondence to Dr S L Mansberger, Devers Eye Institute, 1040 NW 22nd Ave, Suite # 200, Portland, OR 97210, USA; smansberger{at}deverseye.org

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2008.144618

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    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.

    The purpose of this study is to determine whether optic disc photographs decrease the intraobserver variability of confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (CSLO) topographic parameters using the HRT II (version 2.01; Heidelberg Instruments, Heidelberg, Germany).

    Methods

    All participants lived near Madurai, India.12 A single operator used the HRT II and corrected for astigmatism and entered keratometry values.3 A trained photographer used a sequential stereo fundus camera (Kowa, Genesis D Standard, Tokyo) to take optic disc photographs. All of the investigations complied with the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki.

    We created three duplicate sets of topographic images. The observer (KP) used the stereo photographs to draw contour lines for the first set of images (C1). To eliminate bias from the previous contour line placement, he waited 2 months, then randomly ordered the images and randomly selected whether to …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Funding 5K23EY015501-1 (SLM), Good Samaritan Foundation, Heidelberg Engineering (equipment), Proctor Foundation.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Provenance and Peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Ethics approval Ethics approval was provided by the Institutional Review Boards at Aravind Eye Hospital (Madurai, India) and Legacy Health System, Portland, Oregon.

    • Patient consent Obtained.