Published in

BMJ Publishing Group, British Journal of Ophthalmology, p. bjo-2023-324012, 2023

DOI: 10.1136/bjo-2023-324012

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Evaluation of a self-imaging OCT for remote diagnosis and monitoring of retinal diseases

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

ObjectivesTo 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).MethodsThis 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.ResultsIn 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 relevanceThis 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.