December 2016
Volume 57, Issue 15
Open Access
Erratum  |   December 2016
Erratum
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science December 2016, Vol.57, 6909. doi:10.1167/iovs.14-14960a
  • Views
  • PDF
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Erratum. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2016;57(15):6909. doi: 10.1167/iovs.14-14960a.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Erratum in: “Baseline OCT Measurements in the Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension Treatment Trial, Part I: Quality Control, Comparisons, and Variability” by OCT Sub-Study Committee for the NORDIC Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension Study Group (Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55:8180–8188) doi:10.1167/iovs.14-14960 
Figures from the Supplementary Material were published in the article as Figures 3, 4, and 5. The correct figures are published below. The article has been corrected online. 
Figure 3
 
Three dimensional segmentation compared to ZM calculations for average RNFL thickness.
Figure 3
 
Three dimensional segmentation compared to ZM calculations for average RNFL thickness.
Figure 4
 
Three-dimensional segmentation compared to ZM calculations for average TRT.
Figure 4
 
Three-dimensional segmentation compared to ZM calculations for average TRT.
Figure 5
 
Three-dimensional segmentation compared to ZM calculations for average GCL+IPL thickness.
Figure 5
 
Three-dimensional segmentation compared to ZM calculations for average GCL+IPL thickness.
Citation: OCT Sub-Study Committee for the NORDIC Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension Study Group. Erratum in: Baseline OCT measurements in the Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension Treatment Trial, Part I: Quality control, comparisons, and variability. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016;57:6909. DOI:10.1167/iovs.14-14960a 
Figure 3
 
Three dimensional segmentation compared to ZM calculations for average RNFL thickness.
Figure 3
 
Three dimensional segmentation compared to ZM calculations for average RNFL thickness.
Figure 4
 
Three-dimensional segmentation compared to ZM calculations for average TRT.
Figure 4
 
Three-dimensional segmentation compared to ZM calculations for average TRT.
Figure 5
 
Three-dimensional segmentation compared to ZM calculations for average GCL+IPL thickness.
Figure 5
 
Three-dimensional segmentation compared to ZM calculations for average GCL+IPL thickness.
×
×

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.

×