You are here

  • Home
  • Online First
  • Standardisation of optical coherence tomography angiography nomenclature in uveitis: first survey results

Article Text

Article menu

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Clinical science
Standardisation of optical coherence tomography angiography nomenclature in uveitis: first survey results
  1. Francesco Pichi1,2,
  2. Ester Carreño Salas3,
  3. Marc D de Smet4,
  4. Vishali Gupta5,
  5. Manfred Zierhut6,
  6. Marion R Munk7,8
  1. 1 Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
  2. 2 Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
  3. 3 Ocular Inflammation Unit, Ophthalmology Department, Hospital Universitario Fundacion Jimenez Diaz, Madrid, Spain
  4. 4 Department of Ophthalmology, University of Leiden, Leiden, Netherlands
  5. 5 Department of Ophthalmology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
  6. 6 Center of Ophthalmology, University of Tuebingen, Tubingen, Germany
  7. 7 Ophthalmology, Inselspital, University Hospital Bern, Bern, Switzerland
  8. 8 Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA
  1. Correspondence to Francesco Pichi, Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi, Al Maryah Island, Abu Dhabi (UAE); ilmiticopicchio{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Aim To standardise the nomenclature for reporting optical coherence angiography (OCT-A) findings in the field of uveitis.

Methods Members of the International Uveitis Study Group, of the American Uveitis Society and of the Sociedad Panamericana de Infermedades Oculares that choose to participate responded to an online questionnaire about their preferred terminology when reporting on OCT-A findings in uveitis. The response of individuals with several publications on OCT-A (experts) was compared with uveitis specialists (users) who have less than five publications on the field of uveitis and OCT-A.

Results A total of 108 uveitis specialists who participated in the survey were included in the analysis. Of those, 23 were considered OCT-A ‘experts’. There was an agreement in both groups for the definition of wide-field (WF)-OCT-A, and definition of neovascularisation in uveitis. Moreover, there was a difference in the responses in other areas, such as quantification of ischaemia, definition of ‘large’ areas of ischaemia or terms to describe decreased OCT-A signal from different causes. There was an unanimous need of ‘users’ and ‘experts’ to distinguish size of decreased OCT-A signal in uveitis, to implement a quantitative measurement of decreased flow specifically for WF-OCT-A and to use different terms for different causes of decreased OCT-A signal.

Conclusions While there was considerable agreement in the terminology used by all uveitis experts, significant differences in terminology were noted between ‘users’ and ‘experts’. These differences indicate the need for standardisation of nomenclature among all uveitis specialists both for the purpose of reporting and in clinical use.

  • Imaging
  • Infection
  • Inflammation

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-316881

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.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Correction notice This paper has been corrected since it was published. The third author's name has been corrected, it is Marc D de Smet.

    • Contributors FP, ECS and MRM: conception or design of the work. FP and ECS: drafting of the work. VG, MRM, MDS, MZ: revising it critically for important intellectual content. VG, MRM, MDS, MZ: final approval of the version to be published.

    • 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.

    • Data availability statement All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

    Linked Articles

    • At a glance
      Highlights from this issue
      Frank Larkin
      British Journal of Ophthalmology 2021; 105 i-ii Published Online First: 23 Jun 2021. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2021-319810