The raw data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. For each calculated parameter, the mean and standard deviation was calculated for each pair or triplet video sequence with approximately equal ODF (±1 unit). A
P value less than 0.05 was considered significant. Each dataset was analyzed in four ways, with the grayscale analysis by logarithmic or standard technique and the wave form by empirical or harmonic analysis, generating four measurements for each parameter type. The coefficient of variation (COV) was used as our measure of repeatability for each parameter, which we termed precision. It was calculated by standard deviation divided by mean multiplied by 100, as a percent. Box plots were produced to allow for comparison of the COV distributions between each parameter for both the artery and vein segments. Multiple measurements were taken from individuals and from the right and left eyes from the same individual. Intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated for within individual and within eye in individual. These were found to be elevated in amplitude (>0.34), downslope (>0.24), and upslope (>0.46) for both eye and individual. So for all comparison testing, linear mixed models were used, incorporating random factors to account for intraeye and intraindividual correlation. To compare different parameter COVs, these linear mixed models were produced with the COV as the dependent variable and type of segment or analysis as the explanatory variable, with patient identity and eye as nested random factors to account for multiple observations from patients and eyes. Coefficient of variation was compared to the mean values, using a similar linear mixed model, to examine whether lower COV was associated with higher mean values, that is, whether standard deviation remained relatively constant. All model residuals were then tested for normal distribution using quantile–quantile distribution; then a Box-Cox analysis and transform were applied when non-normal.
18 With non-normal distributions, optimum
λ was selected and the data transformed as follows: transformed COV = (COV
λ − 1)/
λ. Then the transformed data were retested for normality. One-way analysis of variance was used to compare between factors (vessel segment or analysis type) and linear modeling for the comparison between continuous variables (COV and mean values). For each segment, six comparisons were performed, two for each of the amplitudes, downslopes, and upslopes, so using a Bonferroni correction a significance value of (0.05/6) 0.0083 was used.
The timing of the peak and trough phases was calculated using the harmonic peak and trough calculations. The difference between arterial and upper vein times and arterial and lower vein times was calculated for each image series. These differences were analyzed using a linear mixed model with time difference as a dependent variable and artery to (upper or lower) vein difference as the explanatory variable, with patient identity and eye as nested random factors to account for multiple observations from patients.