RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Evaluation of a self-imaging OCT for remote diagnosis and monitoring of retinal diseases
JF British Journal of Ophthalmology
JO Br J Ophthalmol
FD BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
SP 1154
OP 1160
DO 10.1136/bjo-2023-324012
VO 108
IS 8
A1 Liu, Zitian
A1 Huang, Wenyong
A1 Wang, Zhenyu
A1 Jin, Ling
A1 Congdon, Nathan
A1 Zheng, Yingfeng
A1 Chen, Shida
A1 Liu, Yizhi
YR 2024
UL http://bjo.bmj.com/content/108/8/1154.abstract
AB Objectives To evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of a portable, self-imaging optical coherence tomography (OCT) for measuring central subfield thickness (CST) and achieving diagnostic concordance for retinal lesions compared with clinic-based spectral-domain OCT (SD-OCT).Methods This comparative, cross-sectional study was conducted between August 2020 and February 2021. Two groups of adult participants were recruited: (1) a selected cohort of 160 participants with confirmed diagnosis and (2) a consecutive cohort of 315 participants recruited randomly. All participants underwent self-imaging OCT examination, as well as standard OCT examination. CST was automatically calculated for comparisons between the two OCT devices. Diagnostic concordance for retinal lesions and the success rate of self-imaging were assessed within the consecutive cohort.Results In the selected cohort, self-imaging OCT images yielded consistent CST with SD-OCT, with a mean difference of 0.1±7.7 µm for normal eyes, 4.9±10.6 µm for macular oedema, −1.3±9.5 µm for choroidal neovascularisation, 5.0±7.8 µm for epiretinal membrane. The self-imaging OCT also demonstrated good repeatability, with a mean test–retest difference in CST of 0.7±3.9 µm and limits of agreement ranging from −6.9 to 8.3 µm. Additionally, within the consecutive cohort, interdevice κ values ranged for detecting various retinal lesions ranged from 0.8 to 1.0, except in the cases of retinal detachment (κ=0.5). All eyes (100%) in the selected cohort and 242 eyes (76.8%) in the consecutive cohort successfully completed self-imaging. Participants spent less time on self-imaging compared with SD-OCT operated by a technician (66.7±20.1 vs 73.3±32.5, p<0.01). A majority of participants (90%) found the self-imaging process ‘easy’ and ‘comfortable’.Conclusions and relevance This study demonstrates that our self-imaging OCT and clinical-used SD-OCT are highly consistent not only in measuring the CST but also in identifying most retinal lesions.Data are available on reasonable request. Data are available on reasonable request. Deidentified participant data can be requested from the co-corresponding authors.