It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Detection and evaluation of inflammatory activity in uveitis is essential to the management of the condition, and yet continues to be largely dependent on subjective clinical measures. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) measurement of vitreous activity is an alternative to clinical vitreous haze scoring and has passed a number of early validation studies. In this study we aimed to evaluate the impact of ‘operator factors’ on the variability of the technique as part of the validation process, and to help evaluate its suitability for ‘real world’ use. Vitreous haze index was calculated as a ratio between the reflectivity of the vitreous and of the outer retina in each scan. Different scanning conditions were tested and their effect on the measurement is reported. Our results show that the ‘quantitative imaging’ technique of OCT-measured vitreous activity had good reliability in normal subjects under a range of ‘real world’ conditions, such as when the operator changes the averaging value. The technique was however vulnerable to highly inaccurate focussing or abnormal downward displacement of the image. OCT-based quantification of vitreous activity is a promising alternative to current subjective clinical estimates, with sufficient ‘tolerance’ to be used in routine clinical practice as well as clinical trials.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 City, University of London, Optometry and Visual Sciences, London, United Kingdom
2 Academic Unit of Ophthalmology, Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom; Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom
3 City, University of London, Optometry and Visual Sciences, London, United Kingdom; NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, United Kingdom
4 Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom
5 Manchester Royal Eye Hospital, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom; Faculty of Medical and Human Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; School of Built Environment, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
6 NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, United Kingdom
7 Academic Unit of Ophthalmology, Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom; Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom; NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, United Kingdom