Free
Retina  |   April 2013
Repeatability and Reproducibility of Choroidal Vessel Layer Measurements in Diabetic Retinopathy Using Enhanced Depth Optical Coherence Tomography
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Dawn A. Sim
    Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
    University College London, Institute of Ophthalmology, London, United Kingdom
  • Pearse A. Keane
    Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
    University College London, Institute of Ophthalmology, London, United Kingdom
  • Hemal Mehta
    Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
  • Simon Fung
    Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
  • Javier Zarranz-Ventura
    Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
  • Marcus Fruttiger
    University College London, Institute of Ophthalmology, London, United Kingdom
  • Praveen J. Patel
    Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
    University College London, Institute of Ophthalmology, London, United Kingdom
  • Catherine A. Egan
    Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
  • Adnan Tufail
    Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
    University College London, Institute of Ophthalmology, London, United Kingdom
  • Correspondence: Adnan Tufail, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, 162 City Road, London EC1V 2PD, United Kingdom; Adnan.Tufail@moorfields.nhs.uk
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2013, Vol.54, 2893-2901. doi:10.1167/iovs.12-11085
  • Views
  • PDF
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Dawn A. Sim, Pearse A. Keane, Hemal Mehta, Simon Fung, Javier Zarranz-Ventura, Marcus Fruttiger, Praveen J. Patel, Catherine A. Egan, Adnan Tufail; Repeatability and Reproducibility of Choroidal Vessel Layer Measurements in Diabetic Retinopathy Using Enhanced Depth Optical Coherence Tomography. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2013;54(4):2893-2901. doi: 10.1167/iovs.12-11085.

      Download citation file:


      © 2017 Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology.

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose.: To describe novel segmentation protocols for choroidal layers, Sattler's medium and Haller's large vessel layers, using enhanced depth imaging optical coherence tomography (EDI-OCT), and to examine the repeatability and reproducibility of these measurements in eyes with diabetic retinopathy.

Methods.: Fifty-one patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus were imaged using custom EDI scanning protocols. Detailed segmentation was performed to quantify the retina, choroid, Haller's large, and Sattler's medium vessel layers in the total macular circle (TMC) and foveal central subfield (FCS). The coefficient of repeatability (CR) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were used as a measure of repeatability and relative reliability within graders. Reproducibility or interobserver variability was assessed using Bland-Altman plots and 95% limits of agreement (LoA).

Results.: Intragrader CR of the retina, choroid, Sattler's, and Haller's layers for thickness measurements were 19.2, 26.9, 35.2, and 29.2 μm, respectively. Intergrader 95% LoA were 27.9, 41.5, 38.6, 31.1 μm (thickness), respectively. Choroidal sublayer measurements showed good intraobserver reliability (ICC 0.78–0.98). Interobserver variability for retinal and choroidal measurements was not significantly different (P > 0.45). Measurements from the TMC showed slightly better repeatability and agreement compared with the FCS alone. Mean intergrader differences were reduced after training, and were most apparent in choroidal sublayers.

Conclusions.: The choroidal vascular sublayers can be quantified with good reliability, repeatability, and reproducibility. Accurate quantitative assessment of these sublayers may provide new insights into the role of the choroid in visual loss in patients with diabetic retinopathy, and prove useful for future clinical trials.

Introduction
The choroidal circulation forms an integral part of metabolic exchange in the outer retina. 1 This is of particular significance in the macula, due to the lack of retinal vasculature, the foveal avascular zone, and a high metabolic demand from an increased photoreceptor density. Dysfunction of the choroidal circulation has been long implicated in diabetic retinopathy and maculopathy. 2 Since the advent of enhanced-depth optical coherence tomography (EDI-OCT) imaging, allowing noninvasive examination of the choroid in vivo, 3 there has been renewed interested in diabetic choroidopathy as a disease entity. 47  
Evidence for diabetic choroidopathy was first noted in histopathological studies, where abnormalities, such as arteriosclerosis, choriocapillaris degeneration, focal scarring, and neovascularization, were observed. 810 This was followed by indocyanine green angiographic findings in the diabetic choroid, showing hyper- and hypofluorescent spots at the level of the choriocapillaris, suggested to represent aneurysms or deficits in the choroidal vasculature. 11,12  
A number of preliminary studies have used OCT, either EDI-OCT or long-wavelength OCT research prototype systems, to examine the choroid in patients with diabetic retinopathy. These studies have reported a thinner choroid compared with healthy eyes, with an increased disparity in eyes with a greater severity of diabetic retinopathy, the presence of macular edema, and prior pan-retinal laser photocoagulation. 47 However, the thinning observed in eyes of patients with diabetic retinopathy has been described to exceed the magnitude of possible choriocapillaris atrophy in isolation. 4 It is therefore conceivable that choroidal vascular changes observed in patients with diabetes occur not only in the choriocapillaris, but also within its medium (Sattler's) and large (Haller's) vessel layers. To date, analysis of these choroidal vascular sublayers using OCT has been restricted to small studies using long-wavelength OCT in healthy subjects. 13,14  
In this study, we describe novel segmentation protocols for the choroidal medium and large vessel layers in EDI-OCT image sets, and examine the repeatability and reproducibility of thickness and volume measurements in the diabetic macula. 
Patients and Methods
Inclusion Criteria and Data Collection
Clinical and imaging data were collected retrospectively from patients attending medical retinal clinics at Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom. All data were collected over a 6-month time period. This study was part of a separate ongoing clinical study, examining the OCT features of diabetic retinopathy; in particular, the relationships between retinal and choroidal thickness measurements to the presence of angiographic ischemia in diabetic eyes. Approval for data collection and analysis was obtained from the local ethics committee and adhered to the tenets set forth in the Declaration of Helsinki. 
Patient demographic data, visual acuities, and retinopathy/maculopathy grades, were obtained from standardized electronic reports in the United Kingdom National Screening Committee (UK NSC)–Diabetic Eye Screening Programme, a grading system that has been described in more detail elsewhere. 15 Patient age at time of attendance, and presence of ocular comorbidity, were obtained from electronic patient records. 
Patients attending the clinic with a diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes mellitus and OCT images acquired using the Spectralis imaging system (Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany) were included. Patients with ocular comorbidities, including retinal arterial or venous occlusion, epiretinal membrane, neovascular age-related macular degeneration, inherited macular disease, or macular scarring of any etiology, were excluded. 
OCT image sets had to be of sufficient quality to allow segmentation of retinal and choroidal layers. A single eye was initially selected using permuted-block randomization for inclusion in the study. Where the image quality was not of sufficient quality for grading, the fellow eye was included. Six eyes were excluded based on these criteria. Boundaries were segmented by two blinded graders (SF and HM). HM was initially the “untrained” grader, and underwent training on OCT manual segmentation of retinal and choroidal layers during the course of this study. 
Acquisition and Analysis of OCT Image Sets
Grading Methods.
Spectral domain OCT images were obtained using the Spectralis imaging system (Heidelberg Engineering). All OCT image sets contained a minimum of 13 B-scans distributed in a horizontal raster pattern overlying the area covered by the nine subfields of the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) grid. Custom image analysis software (OCTOR; Doheny Image Reading Center, Los Angeles, CA) was used for quantitative analysis of OCT image sets. OCTOR has been described and validated in previous reports. 16,17  
Segmentation Protocol for Retinal Spaces.
Boundaries were manually segmented in accordance with standardized OCT grading protocols. 18 The retinal space was defined as the space lying between the inner aspect of the internal limiting membrane and the outer border of the photoreceptor outer segments. 19,20  
Segmentation Protocol for Choroidal Spaces.
The choroid was defined as the space between the outer border of the retinal pigment epithelium and choroidoscleral junction. The choroid was further subdivided into Haller's large vessel and Sattler's medium vessel layers (Fig. 1). Haller's large vessel layer was defined as the outer choroid, consisting of large hypointense spaces representing large vascular luminal spaces. Sattler's medium vessel layer consisted of small- to medium-sized hypointense spaces, surrounded by hyperintense stroma (increase scattering by high density of melanocytes), giving a mottled appearance on scans. 14 This layer also included the choriocapillaris, which at 10 μm is not easily distinguished from the Sattler's medium vessel layer on OCT images. The detailed choroidal segmentation protocol is illustrated in Figure 1 (Figs. 1a, 1b). This protocol was used in the training of graders and was used before all grading sessions. 
Figure 1
 
An example of a foveal-centered B-scan, acquired using the EDI-OCT protocol. Annotations illustrate the instructions from the choroidal segmentation protocol, and demonstrate identification and segmentation of choroidal layers by examining changes in light reflectance at the different tissue interfaces. (a) Black arrows indicate the outer border of the RPE, and white arrowheads the outer choroidal border (OCB), which represents the choroidoscleral interface. (b) Segmentation lines on the outer border of the RPE (red) and OCB (green) demarcating the total choroidal area/volume. (c) Black arrowheads indicate the junction between Sattler's medium and Haller's large vessel layers. Black stars indicate difficulty areas where the interface between both Sattler's and Haller's layers is ambiguous. Segmentation of these areas may be aided by clues from adjacent B-scans. (d) Segmentation line on the Sattler's and Haller's vessel layer interface (yellow).
Figure 1
 
An example of a foveal-centered B-scan, acquired using the EDI-OCT protocol. Annotations illustrate the instructions from the choroidal segmentation protocol, and demonstrate identification and segmentation of choroidal layers by examining changes in light reflectance at the different tissue interfaces. (a) Black arrows indicate the outer border of the RPE, and white arrowheads the outer choroidal border (OCB), which represents the choroidoscleral interface. (b) Segmentation lines on the outer border of the RPE (red) and OCB (green) demarcating the total choroidal area/volume. (c) Black arrowheads indicate the junction between Sattler's medium and Haller's large vessel layers. Black stars indicate difficulty areas where the interface between both Sattler's and Haller's layers is ambiguous. Segmentation of these areas may be aided by clues from adjacent B-scans. (d) Segmentation line on the Sattler's and Haller's vessel layer interface (yellow).
The mean retinal and choroidal thicknesses (μm) and volumes (mm3) were then calculated for the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) areas 1 to 9 or the “total macular circle” (TMC), and ETDRS area 9 which corresponds to the foveal central subfield (FCS). 
Assessment of Repeatability of Segmentation.
A subset of OCT images (n = 20) was segmented three times by a single grader (HM): once before training, and twice after training. This OCT image set was also segmented twice by the experienced grader (SF) to assess repeatability. The time interval between each episode of segmentation was greater than 2 weeks for both graders. 
Assessment of Reproducibility of Segmentation.
All OCT images (n = 51) were segmented by both graders in a masked fashion. 
Statistical Analysis
Patient demographic and imaging data were analyzed with frequency and descriptive statistics. 
The coefficient of repeatability (CR) of retinal and choroidal thickness measurements was calculated using the within-grader standard deviation (Sw) derived from the intragrader mean square of differences. The CR, as defined by Bland and Altman, 21 was calculated as 1.96 times the SD of the differences between two measurements: CR = 1.96 × √(2S2 w) or 2.77Sw. To allow comparison with other studies, we also expressed the CR as a percentage of the mean measurement for all retinal and choroidal layers (CR/Mean), with a lower the CR/Mean percentage representing greater repeatability within graders. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used as a measure of relative reliability of measures within graders. 
Reproducibility or interobserver variability was assessed using Bland-Altman plots, using the mean thickness and volume measurements, segmented by each grader. 22 The mean difference and confidence intervals were calculated. Agreement between graders was also examined using Bland-Altman analysis, with the 95% limits of agreement (μm) (LoA) between graders calculated, after confirming that the measurement differences were normally distributed using histograms. 
Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software version 16 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL) and MedCalc software version 10.3.2 (MedCalc Software, Mariakerke, Belgium). 
Results
A total of 51 eyes of 51 patients with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes with a mean age of 60.1 years were included in this study. Patient demographic data and mean retinal and choroidal thickness and volume measurements from each grader area are summarized in Table 1
Table 1. 
 
Demographic Data of Study Cohort
Table 1. 
 
Demographic Data of Study Cohort
Total Cohort, n = 51 Thickness Measurements, μm Volume Measurements, mm3
Mean, n (%) SD Range Mean SD Range
Type 2 diabetes, n 51 (100)
DR
None 2 (3.9)
Nonproliferative DR 28 (54.9)
Proliferative DR active and treated 21 (41.2)
Diabetic maculopathy
No DME 21 (41.2)
DME 15 (29.4)
CSME active and treated 15 (29.4)
Male, n 33
Left eye, n 16
Age, y 60.1 13.6 28.0−84.0
VA, logMAR 0.27 0.26 −0.2−1.3
Retina
 TMC
  Grader 1 290.9 43.3 218.7−493.1 8.03 1.32 4.22 13.78
  Grader 2 282.4 47.0 171.3−497.1 7.68 1.69 5.85−13.75
  Grader 1 271.8 102.0 166.5−737.3 0.214 0.08 0.130−0.580
  Grader 2 270.5 102.1 160.4−739.4 0.203 0.12 0.102−0.671
Choroid
 TMS
  Grader 1 232.7 66.5 86.6−389.7 6.42 1.90 2.38−10.98
  Grader 2 224.7 62.2 97.5−359.5 6.12 1.82 2.69−10.26
 FCS
  Grader 1 251.1 73.0 88.1−409.0 0.198 0.057 0.070−0.320
  Grader 2 242.9 67.9 87.1−407.4 0.191 0.045 0.061−0.304
Haller's layer
 TMS
  Grader 1 115.2 39.3 17.7−210.3 3.18 1.11 0.47−5.92
  Grader 2 122.8 35.6 50.2−196.3 3.33 1.22 1.35−5.58
 FCS
  Grader 1 124.7 47.1 7.3−256.2 0.098 0.037 0.010−0.200
  Grader 2 133.2 41.1 47.4−239.7 0.109 0.023 0.040−0.190
Sattler's layer
 TMS
  Grader 1 117.5 32.2 55.5−221.0 3.24 0.93 1.49−6.31
  Grader 2 105.9 28.7 48.2−164.3 2.84 0.91 1.32−4.69
 FCS
  Grader 1 126.2 38.5 50.0−239.0 0.100 0.030 0.040−0.190
  Grader 2 115.7 33.5 39.7−191.3 0.091 0.024 0.032−0.150
Repeatability of Measurements
The repeatability of retinal and choroidal measurements was assessed in subset of 20 eyes randomly selected from the study cohort. Each image set was manually segmented twice by each “trained” grader. (The junior grader, HM, received training before both episodes of segmentation.) The CR (μm or mm3), CR expressed as a percentage of mean thickness or volume (CR/Mean), and reliability (ICC) for all indices measured in the TMC and FCS are presented in Table 2
Table 2. 
 
Repeatability and Reliability of Retinal and Choroidal Thickness Measurements in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes
Table 2. 
 
Repeatability and Reliability of Retinal and Choroidal Thickness Measurements in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes
CR, μm CR/Mean, % ICC 95% CI
Retina
 TMC 19.2 6.7 0.98 0.95−0.99
 FCS 49.0 18.1 0.98 0.95−0.99
Choroid
 TMC 26.9 11.8 0.97 0.94−0.99
 FCS 48.3 19.6 0.93 0.83−0.97
Haller's layer
 TMC 35.2 29.6 0.86 0.68−0.94
 FCS 38.2 29.7 0.78 0.53−0.91
Sattler's layer
 TMC 29.2 26.0 0.89 0.73−0.95
 FCS 39.0 32.2 0.88 0.73−0.95
Repeatability of Thickness and Volume Measurements.
Thickness measurements of the TMC showed better repeatability than those at the FCS (Figs. 2, 3; Tables 2, 3). The CR of both retinal and choroidal thicknesses ranged from 19.2 to 35.2 μm in the TMC, and 26.9 to 49.0 μm in the FCS. TMC thickness measurements were also more reliable in retinal, total choroidal, and Sattler's medium vessel layers. The lowest CR/Mean percentages (greatest repeatability) were observed in the TMC of the retina and total choroidal thickness measurements (6.7 and 11.8, respectively). Segmentation for choroidal sublayers, Haller's large vessel, and Sattler's medium vessel layers showed less repeatability, with higher CR/Mean percentages. Repeatability of volume measurements were similar to that of thickness measurements, as observed in the CR/Mean percentages. 
Figure 2
 
Choroidal segmentation protocol, including detailed instructions on segmentation of the choroidal sublayers Haller's large vessel (HLV) and Sattler's medium vessel (SMV) layers. This was used in the training of graders, and read before all grading sessions.
Figure 2
 
Choroidal segmentation protocol, including detailed instructions on segmentation of the choroidal sublayers Haller's large vessel (HLV) and Sattler's medium vessel (SMV) layers. This was used in the training of graders, and read before all grading sessions.
Figure 3
 
Bar chart illustrating the interobserver mean difference in thickness measurements (μm) of the retina, total choroid, Haller's larger vessel, and Sattler's medium vessel layers. Measurements in the TMC, gray bars, and FCS, white bars, are presented.
Figure 3
 
Bar chart illustrating the interobserver mean difference in thickness measurements (μm) of the retina, total choroid, Haller's larger vessel, and Sattler's medium vessel layers. Measurements in the TMC, gray bars, and FCS, white bars, are presented.
Table 3. 
 
Repeatability and Reliability of Retinal and Choroidal Volume Measurements in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes
Table 3. 
 
Repeatability and Reliability of Retinal and Choroidal Volume Measurements in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes
CR, mm3 CR/Mean, % ICC 95% CI
Retina
 TMC 0.64 8.1 0.97 0.94−0.99
 FCS 0.04 18.7 0.98 0.95−0.99
Choroid
 TMC 0.83 13.1 0.97 0.92−0.99
 FCS 0.04 20.6 0.92 0.80−0.97
Haller's layer
 TMC 1.03 31.4 0.85 0.66−0.94
 FCS 0.03 29.7 0.76 0.48−0.90
Sattler's layer
 TMC 0.80 25.8 0.89 0.74−0.95
 FCS 0.03 31.4 0.88 0.71−0.95
The reliability of both thickness and volume measurements, as expressed by the ICC, showed good reliability (ICC > 0.8) across all layers, apart from measurements in Haller's large vessel layer at the FCS (thickness: ICC 0.78, volume: ICC 0.76). 
Reproducibility of Measurements
Reproducibility of Retinal and Choroidal Measurements.
The reproducibility of thickness and volume measurements between both trained graders are displayed in Tables 4 (thickness) and 5 (volume) for all retinal and choroidal layers. Bland-Altman plots were used to illustrate agreement between graders (Figs. 47; Tables 46). No significant changes were observed with interobserver variability for the range of retinal and choroidal measurements. 
Figure 4
 
Bland-Altman plot illustrating the reproducibility of retinal thickness measurements. Mean difference between graders, 8.5 μm; 95% confidence intervals (CIs), −19.4 to 36.5 μm. The variance ratio (F statistic) of intergrader differences showed no significant difference between graders (P = 0.91 TMC, P = 0.94 FCS).
Figure 4
 
Bland-Altman plot illustrating the reproducibility of retinal thickness measurements. Mean difference between graders, 8.5 μm; 95% confidence intervals (CIs), −19.4 to 36.5 μm. The variance ratio (F statistic) of intergrader differences showed no significant difference between graders (P = 0.91 TMC, P = 0.94 FCS).
Figure 5
 
Bland-Altman plot illustrating the reproducibility of total choroidal thickness measurements. Mean difference between graders, 8.0 μm; 95% CIs, −33.5 to 49.4 μm. The variance ratio (F statistic) of intergrader differences showed no significant difference between graders (P = 0.94 TMC, P = 0.68 FCS).
Figure 5
 
Bland-Altman plot illustrating the reproducibility of total choroidal thickness measurements. Mean difference between graders, 8.0 μm; 95% CIs, −33.5 to 49.4 μm. The variance ratio (F statistic) of intergrader differences showed no significant difference between graders (P = 0.94 TMC, P = 0.68 FCS).
Figure 6
 
Bland-Altman plot illustrating the reproducibility of Haller's large vessel layer thickness measurements. Mean difference between graders, −4.1 μm; 95% CIs, −42.6 to 34.5 μm. The variance ratio (F statistic) of intergrader differences showed no significant difference between graders (P = 0.98 TMC, P = 0.49 FCS).
Figure 6
 
Bland-Altman plot illustrating the reproducibility of Haller's large vessel layer thickness measurements. Mean difference between graders, −4.1 μm; 95% CIs, −42.6 to 34.5 μm. The variance ratio (F statistic) of intergrader differences showed no significant difference between graders (P = 0.98 TMC, P = 0.49 FCS).
Figure 7
 
Bland-Altman plot illustrating the reproducibility of Haller's large vessel layer thickness measurements. Mean difference between graders, 13.7 μm; 95% CIs, −17.4 to 44.8 μm. The variance ratio (F statistic) of intergrader differences showed no significant difference between graders (P = 0.88 TMC, P = 0.45 FCS).
Figure 7
 
Bland-Altman plot illustrating the reproducibility of Haller's large vessel layer thickness measurements. Mean difference between graders, 13.7 μm; 95% CIs, −17.4 to 44.8 μm. The variance ratio (F statistic) of intergrader differences showed no significant difference between graders (P = 0.88 TMC, P = 0.45 FCS).
Table 4. 
 
Reproducibility of Retinal and Choroidal Thickness Measurements in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes
Table 4. 
 
Reproducibility of Retinal and Choroidal Thickness Measurements in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes
Interobserver Mean Difference, μm 95% CI, μm 95% Limits of Agreement, μm
Retina
 TMC 8.52 4.51−12.5 27.9
 FCS 2.80 −4.26−9.87 48.8
Choroid
 TMC 7.99 2.04−13.9 41.5
 FCS 9.56 1.85−17.3 53.1
Haller's layer
 TMC −4.05 −9.96−1.86 38.6
 FCS −2.12 −10.9−6.63 56.5
Sattler's layer
 TMC 13.7 8.95−18.5 31.1
 FCS 14.0 7.16−20.8 44.0
Table 5. 
 
Reproducibility of Retinal and Choroidal Volume Measurements in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes
Table 5. 
 
Reproducibility of Retinal and Choroidal Volume Measurements in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes
Interobserver Mean Difference, mm3 95% CI, mm3 95% Limits of Agreement, mm3
Retina
 TMC 0.36 0.18−0.54 1.26
 FCS 0.00 −0.0035−0.0071 0.04
Choroid
 TMC 0.31 0.10−0.52 0.43
 FCS 0.01 0.0013−0.014 0.04
Haller's layer
 TMC −0.06 −0.24−0.13 1.21
 FCS −0.11 −0.14 to −0.09 0.17
Sattler's layer
 TMC 0.42 0.28−0.56 0.92
 FCS 0.01 0.0057−0.017 0.03
Table 6. 
 
The Variance Ratio (F Statistic) of Intergrader Differences in Retinal and Choroidal Measurements
Table 6. 
 
The Variance Ratio (F Statistic) of Intergrader Differences in Retinal and Choroidal Measurements
Thickness Measurements Volume Measurements
F Test P Value F Test P Value
Retina
 TMC 1.18 0.56 1.03 0.91
 FCS 1.00 1.00 1.02 0.94
Choroid
 TMC 1.14 0.64 1.02 0.94
 FCS 1.15 0.62 1.12 0.68
Haller's layer
 TMC 1.22 0.50 1.01 0.98
 FCS 1.32 0.36 1.23 0.49
Sattler's layer
 TMC 1.26 0.44 1.05 0.88
 FCS 1.32 0.35 1.26 0.45
To examine whether the 95% limits of agreement were significantly different between observers, the variance of the interobserver measurement differences were calculated and the F statistic (variance ratio) presented (Table 6). The variance ratio between graders was not statistically significant in all layers; however, the data showed a trend toward a higher variance ratio in the choroidal sublayers quantified at the FCS. TMC measurements showed similar variance ratios in all layers. 
Factors that may affect agreement were also analyzed. A univariate generalized linear model was fitted to the data, with the difference in thickness measurements between graders as the dependent variable, and retinopathy grade, maculopathy grade, age, sex, and visual acuity (VA) as covariates. VA was the only factor that showed significant association with retinal and choroidal thickness measurement difference between graders (Table 7). There was no significant association in the choroidal sublayers. Scatter plot analysis of VA and LoA did not reveal any association between these two factors (Fig. 8). 
Figure 8
 
Scatterplot showing the effect of VA on the thickness measurement differences (μm) between graders in the retina and choroid. No relationship was observed with visual acuity (regression coefficients: R 2 = 0.029 retinal thickness, R 2 = 0.093 choroidal thickness).
Figure 8
 
Scatterplot showing the effect of VA on the thickness measurement differences (μm) between graders in the retina and choroid. No relationship was observed with visual acuity (regression coefficients: R 2 = 0.029 retinal thickness, R 2 = 0.093 choroidal thickness).
Table 7. 
 
Factors Affecting the Agreement Between Graders
Table 7. 
 
Factors Affecting the Agreement Between Graders
Difference Thickness Measurements, μm, Between Graders, F Statistic (P Value)
Retina Choroid Haller's Layer Sattler's Layer
TMC FCS TMC FCS TMC FCS TMC FCS
Retinopathy 1.45 (0.24) 0.03 (0.86) 3.24 (0.08) 1.29 (0.27) 2.48 (0.13) 0.33 (0.57) 0.01 (0.94) 4.34 (0.05)
Maculopathy 0.24 (0.87) 0.59 (0.63) 0.22 (0.88) 0.46 (0.71) 0.46 (0.71) 0.93 (0.44) 0.47 (0.71) 0.20 (0.90)
Age 1.77 (0.19) 0.40 (0.53) 1.40 (0.25) 0.81 (0.21) 1.64 (0.21) 0.01 (0.99) 0.01 (0.93) 0.71 (0.41)
Sex 3.23 (0.08) 2.64 (0.12) 0.10 (0.76) 1.01 (0.19) 1.76 (0.19) 0.16 (0.69) 1.78 (0.19) 1.81 (0.19)
VA 4.49* (0.04) 0.05 (0.82) 6.02* (0.02) 0.37 (0.55) 2.19 (0.15) 0.32 (0.57) 1.68 (0.20) 1.71 (0.20)
The Effect of Training on Reproducibility of Measurements.
As expected, the mean intergrader differences were reduced after training. This was most apparent in measurements of the choroid and its sublayers (Table 8). 
Table 8. 
 
The Effect of Manual Segmentation Training on the Reproducibility of Retinal and Choroidal Thickness Measurements
Table 8. 
 
The Effect of Manual Segmentation Training on the Reproducibility of Retinal and Choroidal Thickness Measurements
Before Training After Training
Intergrader Mean Difference, μ 95% CI, μm 95% Limits of Agreement, μm Intergrader Mean Difference, μm 95% CI, μm 95% Limits of Agreement, μm
Retina
 TMC −5.98 −9.13−−2.83 8.63 4.07 −2.64−10.8 18.4
 FCS −4.44 −9.25−0.37 13.2 −8.96 −32.7−14.8 65.0
Choroid
 TMC 23.7 11.3−36.1 34.0 12.3 0.29−24.2 32.8
 FCS 33.1 9.09−57.13 65.8 21.3 0.34−42.2 57.4
Haller's layer
 TMC −14.3 −32.4−3.82 49.6 −4.74 −19.0−9.48 39.0
 FCS −6.74 −38.1−24.6 85.9 5.90 −17.9−29.7 65.3
Sattler's layer
 TMC 37.1 24.0−50.1 35.7 16.7 5.31−28.2 31.3
 FCS 39.1 23.6−54.7 42.5 14.7 3.20−26.3 31.6
The Effect of Clinically Significant Macular Edema on Reproducibility of Measurements.
The variance ratio between eyes with clinically significant macular edema (CSME) and eyes with “no CSME” was calculated. As expected, this was significantly different between retinal measurements (by definition of the subgroup of eyes with CSME would have greater variance compared with eyes with “no CSME”), but not in the total choroid or its sublayer measurements (Table 9). 
Table 9. 
 
The Variance Ratio (F Statistic) of Retinal and Choroidal Measurements in Eyes With and Without Clinically Significant Macular Edema
Table 9. 
 
The Variance Ratio (F Statistic) of Retinal and Choroidal Measurements in Eyes With and Without Clinically Significant Macular Edema
Thickness Measurements Volume Measurements
F Test P Value F Test P Value
Retina
 TMC 2.52 0.02* 1.91 0.11
 FCS 2.37 0.03* 2.32 0.04*
Choroid
 TMC 1.16 0.68 1.12 0.75
 FCS 1.49 0.33 1.60 0.24
Haller's layer
 TMC 1.48 0.32 1.46 0.35
 FCS 1.32 0.36 1.23 0.49
Sattler's layer
 TMC 1.75 0.17 1.66 0.21
 FCS 1.74 0.18 1.76 0.16
Discussion
In this study, we describe novel segmentation protocols for delineating the medium and large vessel layers of the choroidal vasculature. Using this approach, we present data examining the repeatability and reproducibility of measurements of the retina, choroid, and choroidal sublayers (Haller's large vessel and Sattler's medium vessel layers) in a cohort of patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus. We also evaluate the effects of clinical parameters, such as diabetic retinopathy and maculopathy, and assess the effects of grader training on the precision and reliability of measurements. 
The mean subfoveal choroidal thickness measurement in our cohort of patients was 233 μm (Grader 1) and 225 μm (Grader 2). This is thinner than observed in healthy subjects, which has been reported to range from 287 to 332 μm. 23,24 This is in agreement with current evidence on choroidal thickness measurements in diabetic eyes. 47 The coefficient for intragrader repeatability of choroidal measurements in the TMC was 26.9 μm and was higher when measured at the FCS (48.3 μm). This represents 12% and 20% of the mean choroidal thickness, respectively. Intragrader repeatability of choroidal thickness measurements has not been assessed in diabetic eyes, but a study using manual caliper measurements in healthy eyes found a CR of 23 μm, lower than observed in our study. 24 Several factors account for this difference. First, the segmentation algorithms used were different. The software used in our study differs from single manual caliper measurements, as it quantifies a continuous length of multiple OCT images. Second, the patient cohorts from both studies were not comparable, and last, the research and statistical methodology were different between studies. The method used in this study quantifies a more representative section of the OCT image set but is likely to bring about greater variability within measurements. 
This study also examined the intergrader variability, or reproducibility of retinal and choroidal measurements. The variance ratio, which compares the LoA of both graders, was not statistically significant in all retinal and choroidal layers (Table 6). However, TMC measurements had a consistently narrower LoA in all retinal and choroidal layers compared with FCS measurements. This was unexpected, as the TMC represents a larger area than the FCS, and segmentation over a larger area should show greater variability. A possible explanation for this observation is that the choroidoscleral interface at the FCS is indistinct in diabetic patients. This may be due to shadowing from macular edema in the retinal layers, or may be resultant of pathology within the choroidal large vessel layers obscuring this interface at the FCS. 
We observed an intergrader mean difference of 9.6 μm for the total choroidal thickness at the FCS, and 8 μm at the TMC. The corresponding LoAs were 41 μm and 53 μm, respectively. In other words, subfoveal or foveal center (EDTRS area 9) total choroidal thickness measurements greater than 41 μm are likely to represent a true difference. The LoAs at the FCS were comparable in the choroidal sublayers for both Haller's (56 μm) and Sattler's layers (44 μm). This suggests that segmentation of these layers can be done with a similar precision as for total choroidal thickness. 
Only one other study has examined reproducibility of choroidal measurements in diabetic eyes. 7 The authors report a coefficient of repeatability (intergrader) of 28.8 μm (95% confidence interval, 24.8–32.8) for measurements at the FCS. The difficultly in making comparison between reproducibility is similar to that encountered with studies on repeatability, as discussed above. This study used manual caliper single-measurements to assess reproducibility, and although our study cohorts were similar, eyes with diabetic retinopathy, the statistical methods used to calculate reproducibility also differed. Interestingly, our measures of variability for choroidal thickness measurements, though larger at 53 μm (LoA), is less than the choroidal thinning observed in studies examining the diabetic choroid. Esmaeelpour et al. 4 report a mean choroidal thinning of 113 to 122 μm in patients with “no diabetic retinopathy” (No DR) and “clinically significant macular edema” (CSME); Vujosevic et al., 7 99.5 μm in “proliferative diabetic retinopathy” (PDR); Regatieri et al., 6 63.3 μm in “diabetic macular edema” (DME), and 69.6 μm in “treated PDR”; and Querques et al., 5 118.2 μm and 71 μm in “CSME” and “No DR,” respectively. 
We also examined the effects of several factors, including severity of DR and maculopathy, age, sex, and visual acuity on the reproducibility of measurements (Table 7). Significant effects were noted only with VA. However, when the relationship VA with reproducibility was examined further on a scatter plot, no associations were identified (Fig. 8). We further investigated the effects that CSME may have in obscuring the location of foveal center, and consequently affecting measurements made at the FCS, compared with those at the TMC. The variance of choroidal thickness and volume measurements, in eyes with or without CSME, were similar in both areas (FCS and TMC), suggesting that CSME does not affect variability of measurements (Table 9). This was further verified by the Bland-Altman plots, which showed no obvious relationship between the magnitude of retinal thickness measurements, and differences between graders (Fig. 4). 
The strengths of this study include its sample size, and the methods of area and volume measurements, which quantify the entire length of scan, as compared with single-caliper measurements. One limitation of this study is that it used data from a separate ongoing clinical study. The consequences were (1) only eyes with DR were used to validate the segmentation protocol, hence, the LoA reported should be applied within the disease entity; and (2) the inclusion of eyes with more severe DR or maculopathy than would typically be observed in a clinical setting. However, this may better reflect a clinical trial setting, where patients who are receiving treatment would have a similar level of pathology. 
Research in “diabetic choroidopathy,” has historically been confined to histopathological and Doppler flow studies. 8,2527 Although current evidence (OCT studies) has suggested that the choroid is thinned in diabetes, the relationship of this finding to clinical parameters, such as DME and VA, is less clear. We speculate that the choroidal vasculature, especially in the foveal avascular zone may, in fact, play an important role in visual function in DME and ischemia, and serve as a useful parameter for monitoring and prognostic tool in diabetic eye disease. However, for reliable quantification of the choroid in diabetic eyes, it is important to establish the minimum difference that can be construed as “a true difference.” 
In summary, we describe segmentation protocols for Sattler's and Haller's vessel layers of the choroid, which showed good reliability, repeatability, and reproducibility within and between graders. With the increasing use of OCT in examining the choroid, the 95% limits of agreement presented in our study may be useful for facilitating studies investigating the underlying pathology in diabetic choroidopathy. 
Acknowledgments
Supported in part by the Department of Health's National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology at Moorfields Eye Hospital and University College London Institute of Ophthalmology (PAK, PJP, CAE, DAS, AT), and a grant from the Spanish Retina and Vitreous Society (Sociedad Española de Retina y Vítreo [SERV]) (JZ-V). The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper. 
Disclosure: D.A. Sim, Fight For Sight UK (F); P.A. Keane, None; H. Mehta, None; S. Fung, None; J. Zarranz-Ventura, None; M. Fruttiger, Fight For Sight UK (F); P.J. Patel, None; C.A. Egan, None; A. Tufail, None 
References
Alm A Bill A. The oxygen supply to the retina. II. Effects of high intraocular pressure and of increased arterial carbon dioxide tension on uveal and retinal blood flow in cats. A study with radioactively labelled microspheres including flow determinations in brain and some other tissues. Acta Physiol Scand . 1972; 84: 306–319. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Yanoff M. Ocular pathology of diabetes mellitus. Am J Ophthalmol . 1969; 67: 21–38. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Spaide RF Koizumi H Pozzoni MC. Enhanced depth imaging spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. Am J Ophthalmol . 2008; 146: 496–500. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Esmaeelpour M Povazay B Hermann B Mapping choroidal and retinal thickness variation in type 2 diabetes using three-dimensional 1060-nm optical coherence tomography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci . 2011; 52: 5311–5316. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Querques G Lattanzio R Querques L Enhanced depth imaging optical coherence tomography in type 2 diabetes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci . 2012; 53: 6017–6024. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Regatieri CV Branchini L Carmody J Choroidal thickness in patients with diabetic retinopathy analyzed by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. Retina . 2012; 32: 563–568. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Vujosevic S Martini F Cavarzeran F Macular and peripapillary choroidal thickness in diabetic patients. Retina . 2012; 32: 1781–1790. [PubMed]
Hidayat AA Fine BS. Diabetic choroidopathy. Light and electron microscopic observations of seven cases. Ophthalmology . 1985; 92: 512–522. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Cao J McLeod S Merges CA Lutty GA. Choriocapillaris degeneration and related pathologic changes in human diabetic eyes. Arch Ophthalmol . 1998; 116: 589–597. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Fukushima I McLeod DS Lutty GA. Intrachoroidal microvascular abnormality: a previously unrecognized form of choroidal neovascularization. Am J Ophthalmol . 1997; 124: 473–487. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Weinberger D Kramer M Priel E Indocyanine green angiographic findings in nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. Am J Ophthalmol . 1998; 126: 238–247. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Shiragami C Shiraga F Matsuo T Risk factors for diabetic choroidopathy in patients with diabetic retinopathy. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol . 2002; 240: 436–442. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Motaghiannezam R Schwartz DM Fraser SE. In vivo human choroidal vascular pattern visualization using high-speed swept-source optical coherence tomography at 1060 nm. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci . 2012; 53: 2337–2348. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Povazay B Hermann B Hofer B Wide-field optical coherence tomography of the choroid in vivo. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci . 2009; 50: 1856–1863. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Mackenzie S Schmermer C Charnley A SDOCT imaging to identify macular pathology in patients diagnosed with diabetic maculopathy by a digital photographic retinal screening programme. PLoS One . 2011; 6: e14811. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sadda SR Wu Z Walsh AC Errors in retinal thickness measurements obtained by optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology . 2006; 113: 285–293. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sadda SR Joeres S Wu Z Error correction and quantitative subanalysis of optical coherence tomography data using computer-assisted grading. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci . 2007; 48: 839–848. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Keane PA Liakopoulos S Ongchin SC Quantitative subanalysis of optical coherence tomography after treatment with ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci . 2008; 49: 3115–3120. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Pons ME Garcia-Valenzuela E. Redefining the limit of the outer retina in optical coherence tomography scans. Ophthalmology . 2005; 112: 1079–1085. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Costa RA Calucci D Skaf M Optical coherence tomography 3: automatic delineation of the outer neural retinal boundary and its influence on retinal thickness measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci . 2004; 45: 2399–2406. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bland JM Altman DG. Measurement error. BMJ . 1996; 313: 744. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bland JM Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet . 1986; 1: 307–310. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Margolis R Spaide RF. A pilot study of enhanced depth imaging optical coherence tomography of the choroid in normal eyes. Am J Ophthalmol . 2009; 147: 811–815. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Rahman W Chen FK Yeoh J Repeatability of manual subfoveal choroidal thickness measurements in healthy subjects using the technique of enhanced depth imaging optical coherence tomography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci . 2011; 52: 2267–2271. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
McLeod DS Lutty GA. High-resolution histologic analysis of the human choroidal vasculature. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci . 1994; 35: 3799–3811. [PubMed]
Nagaoka T Kitaya N Sugawara R Alteration of choroidal circulation in the foveal region in patients with type 2 diabetes. Br J Ophthalmol . 2004; 88: 1060–1063. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Schocket LS Brucker AJ Niknam RM Foveolar choroidal hemodynamics in proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Int Ophthalmol . 2004; 25: 89–94. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1
 
An example of a foveal-centered B-scan, acquired using the EDI-OCT protocol. Annotations illustrate the instructions from the choroidal segmentation protocol, and demonstrate identification and segmentation of choroidal layers by examining changes in light reflectance at the different tissue interfaces. (a) Black arrows indicate the outer border of the RPE, and white arrowheads the outer choroidal border (OCB), which represents the choroidoscleral interface. (b) Segmentation lines on the outer border of the RPE (red) and OCB (green) demarcating the total choroidal area/volume. (c) Black arrowheads indicate the junction between Sattler's medium and Haller's large vessel layers. Black stars indicate difficulty areas where the interface between both Sattler's and Haller's layers is ambiguous. Segmentation of these areas may be aided by clues from adjacent B-scans. (d) Segmentation line on the Sattler's and Haller's vessel layer interface (yellow).
Figure 1
 
An example of a foveal-centered B-scan, acquired using the EDI-OCT protocol. Annotations illustrate the instructions from the choroidal segmentation protocol, and demonstrate identification and segmentation of choroidal layers by examining changes in light reflectance at the different tissue interfaces. (a) Black arrows indicate the outer border of the RPE, and white arrowheads the outer choroidal border (OCB), which represents the choroidoscleral interface. (b) Segmentation lines on the outer border of the RPE (red) and OCB (green) demarcating the total choroidal area/volume. (c) Black arrowheads indicate the junction between Sattler's medium and Haller's large vessel layers. Black stars indicate difficulty areas where the interface between both Sattler's and Haller's layers is ambiguous. Segmentation of these areas may be aided by clues from adjacent B-scans. (d) Segmentation line on the Sattler's and Haller's vessel layer interface (yellow).
Figure 2
 
Choroidal segmentation protocol, including detailed instructions on segmentation of the choroidal sublayers Haller's large vessel (HLV) and Sattler's medium vessel (SMV) layers. This was used in the training of graders, and read before all grading sessions.
Figure 2
 
Choroidal segmentation protocol, including detailed instructions on segmentation of the choroidal sublayers Haller's large vessel (HLV) and Sattler's medium vessel (SMV) layers. This was used in the training of graders, and read before all grading sessions.
Figure 3
 
Bar chart illustrating the interobserver mean difference in thickness measurements (μm) of the retina, total choroid, Haller's larger vessel, and Sattler's medium vessel layers. Measurements in the TMC, gray bars, and FCS, white bars, are presented.
Figure 3
 
Bar chart illustrating the interobserver mean difference in thickness measurements (μm) of the retina, total choroid, Haller's larger vessel, and Sattler's medium vessel layers. Measurements in the TMC, gray bars, and FCS, white bars, are presented.
Figure 4
 
Bland-Altman plot illustrating the reproducibility of retinal thickness measurements. Mean difference between graders, 8.5 μm; 95% confidence intervals (CIs), −19.4 to 36.5 μm. The variance ratio (F statistic) of intergrader differences showed no significant difference between graders (P = 0.91 TMC, P = 0.94 FCS).
Figure 4
 
Bland-Altman plot illustrating the reproducibility of retinal thickness measurements. Mean difference between graders, 8.5 μm; 95% confidence intervals (CIs), −19.4 to 36.5 μm. The variance ratio (F statistic) of intergrader differences showed no significant difference between graders (P = 0.91 TMC, P = 0.94 FCS).
Figure 5
 
Bland-Altman plot illustrating the reproducibility of total choroidal thickness measurements. Mean difference between graders, 8.0 μm; 95% CIs, −33.5 to 49.4 μm. The variance ratio (F statistic) of intergrader differences showed no significant difference between graders (P = 0.94 TMC, P = 0.68 FCS).
Figure 5
 
Bland-Altman plot illustrating the reproducibility of total choroidal thickness measurements. Mean difference between graders, 8.0 μm; 95% CIs, −33.5 to 49.4 μm. The variance ratio (F statistic) of intergrader differences showed no significant difference between graders (P = 0.94 TMC, P = 0.68 FCS).
Figure 6
 
Bland-Altman plot illustrating the reproducibility of Haller's large vessel layer thickness measurements. Mean difference between graders, −4.1 μm; 95% CIs, −42.6 to 34.5 μm. The variance ratio (F statistic) of intergrader differences showed no significant difference between graders (P = 0.98 TMC, P = 0.49 FCS).
Figure 6
 
Bland-Altman plot illustrating the reproducibility of Haller's large vessel layer thickness measurements. Mean difference between graders, −4.1 μm; 95% CIs, −42.6 to 34.5 μm. The variance ratio (F statistic) of intergrader differences showed no significant difference between graders (P = 0.98 TMC, P = 0.49 FCS).
Figure 7
 
Bland-Altman plot illustrating the reproducibility of Haller's large vessel layer thickness measurements. Mean difference between graders, 13.7 μm; 95% CIs, −17.4 to 44.8 μm. The variance ratio (F statistic) of intergrader differences showed no significant difference between graders (P = 0.88 TMC, P = 0.45 FCS).
Figure 7
 
Bland-Altman plot illustrating the reproducibility of Haller's large vessel layer thickness measurements. Mean difference between graders, 13.7 μm; 95% CIs, −17.4 to 44.8 μm. The variance ratio (F statistic) of intergrader differences showed no significant difference between graders (P = 0.88 TMC, P = 0.45 FCS).
Figure 8
 
Scatterplot showing the effect of VA on the thickness measurement differences (μm) between graders in the retina and choroid. No relationship was observed with visual acuity (regression coefficients: R 2 = 0.029 retinal thickness, R 2 = 0.093 choroidal thickness).
Figure 8
 
Scatterplot showing the effect of VA on the thickness measurement differences (μm) between graders in the retina and choroid. No relationship was observed with visual acuity (regression coefficients: R 2 = 0.029 retinal thickness, R 2 = 0.093 choroidal thickness).
Table 1. 
 
Demographic Data of Study Cohort
Table 1. 
 
Demographic Data of Study Cohort
Total Cohort, n = 51 Thickness Measurements, μm Volume Measurements, mm3
Mean, n (%) SD Range Mean SD Range
Type 2 diabetes, n 51 (100)
DR
None 2 (3.9)
Nonproliferative DR 28 (54.9)
Proliferative DR active and treated 21 (41.2)
Diabetic maculopathy
No DME 21 (41.2)
DME 15 (29.4)
CSME active and treated 15 (29.4)
Male, n 33
Left eye, n 16
Age, y 60.1 13.6 28.0−84.0
VA, logMAR 0.27 0.26 −0.2−1.3
Retina
 TMC
  Grader 1 290.9 43.3 218.7−493.1 8.03 1.32 4.22 13.78
  Grader 2 282.4 47.0 171.3−497.1 7.68 1.69 5.85−13.75
  Grader 1 271.8 102.0 166.5−737.3 0.214 0.08 0.130−0.580
  Grader 2 270.5 102.1 160.4−739.4 0.203 0.12 0.102−0.671
Choroid
 TMS
  Grader 1 232.7 66.5 86.6−389.7 6.42 1.90 2.38−10.98
  Grader 2 224.7 62.2 97.5−359.5 6.12 1.82 2.69−10.26
 FCS
  Grader 1 251.1 73.0 88.1−409.0 0.198 0.057 0.070−0.320
  Grader 2 242.9 67.9 87.1−407.4 0.191 0.045 0.061−0.304
Haller's layer
 TMS
  Grader 1 115.2 39.3 17.7−210.3 3.18 1.11 0.47−5.92
  Grader 2 122.8 35.6 50.2−196.3 3.33 1.22 1.35−5.58
 FCS
  Grader 1 124.7 47.1 7.3−256.2 0.098 0.037 0.010−0.200
  Grader 2 133.2 41.1 47.4−239.7 0.109 0.023 0.040−0.190
Sattler's layer
 TMS
  Grader 1 117.5 32.2 55.5−221.0 3.24 0.93 1.49−6.31
  Grader 2 105.9 28.7 48.2−164.3 2.84 0.91 1.32−4.69
 FCS
  Grader 1 126.2 38.5 50.0−239.0 0.100 0.030 0.040−0.190
  Grader 2 115.7 33.5 39.7−191.3 0.091 0.024 0.032−0.150
Table 2. 
 
Repeatability and Reliability of Retinal and Choroidal Thickness Measurements in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes
Table 2. 
 
Repeatability and Reliability of Retinal and Choroidal Thickness Measurements in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes
CR, μm CR/Mean, % ICC 95% CI
Retina
 TMC 19.2 6.7 0.98 0.95−0.99
 FCS 49.0 18.1 0.98 0.95−0.99
Choroid
 TMC 26.9 11.8 0.97 0.94−0.99
 FCS 48.3 19.6 0.93 0.83−0.97
Haller's layer
 TMC 35.2 29.6 0.86 0.68−0.94
 FCS 38.2 29.7 0.78 0.53−0.91
Sattler's layer
 TMC 29.2 26.0 0.89 0.73−0.95
 FCS 39.0 32.2 0.88 0.73−0.95
Table 3. 
 
Repeatability and Reliability of Retinal and Choroidal Volume Measurements in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes
Table 3. 
 
Repeatability and Reliability of Retinal and Choroidal Volume Measurements in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes
CR, mm3 CR/Mean, % ICC 95% CI
Retina
 TMC 0.64 8.1 0.97 0.94−0.99
 FCS 0.04 18.7 0.98 0.95−0.99
Choroid
 TMC 0.83 13.1 0.97 0.92−0.99
 FCS 0.04 20.6 0.92 0.80−0.97
Haller's layer
 TMC 1.03 31.4 0.85 0.66−0.94
 FCS 0.03 29.7 0.76 0.48−0.90
Sattler's layer
 TMC 0.80 25.8 0.89 0.74−0.95
 FCS 0.03 31.4 0.88 0.71−0.95
Table 4. 
 
Reproducibility of Retinal and Choroidal Thickness Measurements in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes
Table 4. 
 
Reproducibility of Retinal and Choroidal Thickness Measurements in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes
Interobserver Mean Difference, μm 95% CI, μm 95% Limits of Agreement, μm
Retina
 TMC 8.52 4.51−12.5 27.9
 FCS 2.80 −4.26−9.87 48.8
Choroid
 TMC 7.99 2.04−13.9 41.5
 FCS 9.56 1.85−17.3 53.1
Haller's layer
 TMC −4.05 −9.96−1.86 38.6
 FCS −2.12 −10.9−6.63 56.5
Sattler's layer
 TMC 13.7 8.95−18.5 31.1
 FCS 14.0 7.16−20.8 44.0
Table 5. 
 
Reproducibility of Retinal and Choroidal Volume Measurements in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes
Table 5. 
 
Reproducibility of Retinal and Choroidal Volume Measurements in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes
Interobserver Mean Difference, mm3 95% CI, mm3 95% Limits of Agreement, mm3
Retina
 TMC 0.36 0.18−0.54 1.26
 FCS 0.00 −0.0035−0.0071 0.04
Choroid
 TMC 0.31 0.10−0.52 0.43
 FCS 0.01 0.0013−0.014 0.04
Haller's layer
 TMC −0.06 −0.24−0.13 1.21
 FCS −0.11 −0.14 to −0.09 0.17
Sattler's layer
 TMC 0.42 0.28−0.56 0.92
 FCS 0.01 0.0057−0.017 0.03
Table 6. 
 
The Variance Ratio (F Statistic) of Intergrader Differences in Retinal and Choroidal Measurements
Table 6. 
 
The Variance Ratio (F Statistic) of Intergrader Differences in Retinal and Choroidal Measurements
Thickness Measurements Volume Measurements
F Test P Value F Test P Value
Retina
 TMC 1.18 0.56 1.03 0.91
 FCS 1.00 1.00 1.02 0.94
Choroid
 TMC 1.14 0.64 1.02 0.94
 FCS 1.15 0.62 1.12 0.68
Haller's layer
 TMC 1.22 0.50 1.01 0.98
 FCS 1.32 0.36 1.23 0.49
Sattler's layer
 TMC 1.26 0.44 1.05 0.88
 FCS 1.32 0.35 1.26 0.45
Table 7. 
 
Factors Affecting the Agreement Between Graders
Table 7. 
 
Factors Affecting the Agreement Between Graders
Difference Thickness Measurements, μm, Between Graders, F Statistic (P Value)
Retina Choroid Haller's Layer Sattler's Layer
TMC FCS TMC FCS TMC FCS TMC FCS
Retinopathy 1.45 (0.24) 0.03 (0.86) 3.24 (0.08) 1.29 (0.27) 2.48 (0.13) 0.33 (0.57) 0.01 (0.94) 4.34 (0.05)
Maculopathy 0.24 (0.87) 0.59 (0.63) 0.22 (0.88) 0.46 (0.71) 0.46 (0.71) 0.93 (0.44) 0.47 (0.71) 0.20 (0.90)
Age 1.77 (0.19) 0.40 (0.53) 1.40 (0.25) 0.81 (0.21) 1.64 (0.21) 0.01 (0.99) 0.01 (0.93) 0.71 (0.41)
Sex 3.23 (0.08) 2.64 (0.12) 0.10 (0.76) 1.01 (0.19) 1.76 (0.19) 0.16 (0.69) 1.78 (0.19) 1.81 (0.19)
VA 4.49* (0.04) 0.05 (0.82) 6.02* (0.02) 0.37 (0.55) 2.19 (0.15) 0.32 (0.57) 1.68 (0.20) 1.71 (0.20)
Table 8. 
 
The Effect of Manual Segmentation Training on the Reproducibility of Retinal and Choroidal Thickness Measurements
Table 8. 
 
The Effect of Manual Segmentation Training on the Reproducibility of Retinal and Choroidal Thickness Measurements
Before Training After Training
Intergrader Mean Difference, μ 95% CI, μm 95% Limits of Agreement, μm Intergrader Mean Difference, μm 95% CI, μm 95% Limits of Agreement, μm
Retina
 TMC −5.98 −9.13−−2.83 8.63 4.07 −2.64−10.8 18.4
 FCS −4.44 −9.25−0.37 13.2 −8.96 −32.7−14.8 65.0
Choroid
 TMC 23.7 11.3−36.1 34.0 12.3 0.29−24.2 32.8
 FCS 33.1 9.09−57.13 65.8 21.3 0.34−42.2 57.4
Haller's layer
 TMC −14.3 −32.4−3.82 49.6 −4.74 −19.0−9.48 39.0
 FCS −6.74 −38.1−24.6 85.9 5.90 −17.9−29.7 65.3
Sattler's layer
 TMC 37.1 24.0−50.1 35.7 16.7 5.31−28.2 31.3
 FCS 39.1 23.6−54.7 42.5 14.7 3.20−26.3 31.6
Table 9. 
 
The Variance Ratio (F Statistic) of Retinal and Choroidal Measurements in Eyes With and Without Clinically Significant Macular Edema
Table 9. 
 
The Variance Ratio (F Statistic) of Retinal and Choroidal Measurements in Eyes With and Without Clinically Significant Macular Edema
Thickness Measurements Volume Measurements
F Test P Value F Test P Value
Retina
 TMC 2.52 0.02* 1.91 0.11
 FCS 2.37 0.03* 2.32 0.04*
Choroid
 TMC 1.16 0.68 1.12 0.75
 FCS 1.49 0.33 1.60 0.24
Haller's layer
 TMC 1.48 0.32 1.46 0.35
 FCS 1.32 0.36 1.23 0.49
Sattler's layer
 TMC 1.75 0.17 1.66 0.21
 FCS 1.74 0.18 1.76 0.16
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×