Strengths of this study include the large number of eyes in each DR severity group allowing adequate step wise comparison between DR severity levels. We excluded eyes with central retinal thickening or morphologic changes due to DME, which might have contributed artifacts to imaging of the deeper layers.
20 Finally, we utilized PAROCTA software that removes projection artifacts from deeper layers because, as initially suggested by our group, this affects DCP and SCP measurements differently depending on DR severity.
48 Limitations of the study include its cross sectional nature, which does not allow us to draw conclusions about changes in VD or VLD in an individual diabetic eye over time. The current study did not explore other OCTA metrics, such as fractal dimension, AFI, or avascular areas. In addition, there was a high percentage of patients with type 1 (72.5%) versus type 2 DM (27.5%). However, unlike recent reports suggesting distinct vascular changes between eyes with type 1 and type 2 DM, an analysis of this dataset did not reveal an interaction between type of DM and changes in VD with increasing DR severity whether in early or more advanced DR.
49 Furthermore, because of the relatively large cohort of eyes in the current study, the total number of eyes of patients with type 2 DM are comparable to previously reported cases.
33,49,50 Although this study used manual segmentation of the three vascular layers with starting point offsets that were previously described for normal eyes,
24 we manually checked each individual B-scan and en face image to ensure that the offset locations conformed as closely as possible to their expected OCTA locations and that the configuration of the vascular plexuses resembled those previously described.
5,6 Another limitation of the current study is the particular binarization technique utilized. Although this method has been used in previous studies, the lack of a particular gold standard and the lack of agreement in current OCTA literature as to the best technique makes it uncertain whether this or another technique is superior.
13,21,25,26 Recent work by Mehta et al. has highlighted that different thresholding techniques significantly affect quantitative measurements and suggests that the results of a single technique may only be valid for that method of binarization.
51 The results of the current study should be evaluated with that consideration in mind. Finally, although we corrected for SE and limited phakic eyes to those with SE from −6 to +3 D, we did not correct for axial length, which has been shown to affect SCP VD by +2 to −3% compared to the uncorrected SCP VD. Effects on the DCP are still unknown.
52