Ophthalmology · 1996
Repeatability and reproducibility of optic disc measurement with the Zeiss 4-mirror contact lens.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Spencer A F, Vernon S A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: A simple clinical quantitative method of optic disc diameter measurement using a 4-mirror gonioscope contact lens has been described recently.
METHODS: Intraobserver and interobserver variations are assessed on 77 eyes of 41 patients. Of these eyes, 63 had refractive errors within 3 diopters of emmetropia. The disc was measured by projecting a slit beam of known height onto the disc.
RESULTS: Intraobserver variation: the coefficient of variation was 3.04% for observer 1 (experienced) and 4.76% for observer 2 (novice). The mean of the three measurements by the two observers was not significantly different (P=0.2318). For observer 1, the mean variance of the eyes with higher refractive errors did not differ significantly from the eyes with lower refractive errors. Interobserver variation: the coefficient of variation was 4.52%. The measurements for the novice were slightly larger the smallest discs and slightly smaller for the largest discs (regression analysis P=0.0209).
CONCLUSION: Repeatability and reproducibility for this method are comparable with other methods of measurement. Until experienced with the technique, the authors recommend that the mean of three readings is used.
METHODS: Intraobserver and interobserver variations are assessed on 77 eyes of 41 patients. Of these eyes, 63 had refractive errors within 3 diopters of emmetropia. The disc was measured by projecting a slit beam of known height onto the disc.
RESULTS: Intraobserver variation: the coefficient of variation was 3.04% for observer 1 (experienced) and 4.76% for observer 2 (novice). The mean of the three measurements by the two observers was not significantly different (P=0.2318). For observer 1, the mean variance of the eyes with higher refractive errors did not differ significantly from the eyes with lower refractive errors. Interobserver variation: the coefficient of variation was 4.52%. The measurements for the novice were slightly larger the smallest discs and slightly smaller for the largest discs (regression analysis P=0.0209).
CONCLUSION: Repeatability and reproducibility for this method are comparable with other methods of measurement. Until experienced with the technique, the authors recommend that the mean of three readings is used.