The ability to detect reticular pseudodrusen (RPD)/subretinal drusenoid deposits (SDDs) using 12×12-mm widefield en face swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) imaging was compared with conventional multimodal imaging (color, fundus autofluorescence (FAF), and infrared reflectance [IR] imaging) in eyes with nonexudative age-related macular degeneration (AMD).
Cross-sectional study.
Patients with nonexudative AMD were prospectively enrolled in an SS-OCT imaging study at the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute.
On the same day, all participants underwent color, FAF, and IR fundus imaging, as well as imaging with a prototype Zeiss 100 kHz SS-OCT instrument (Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc, Dublin, CA). Two masked graders assessed the presence, absence, or uncertainty of RPD/SDDs on conventional multimodal images and separately on 4 different SS-OCT en face images derived from the same volumetric dataset. The results from grading the conventional images and the SS-OCT en face images were compared.
Agreement in the detection of RPD/SDDs using different imaging modalities.
A total of 307 eyes (209 patients) were graded for the presence or absence of RPD/SDDs. The agreement between SS-OCT and multimodal imaging was 83%. The difference in RPD/SDD detection with either image modality was not statistically significant (P = 0.21). The sensitivity of SS-OCT in RPD/SDD detection was 83%, and when using conventional imaging, the sensitivity was 75%. When using SS-OCT imaging alone, 10% of RPD/SDD cases would be missed, and when using conventional imaging alone, 14% of RPD/SDD cases would be missed. The presence of RPD/SDD was confirmed retrospectively in 48 of 52 cases once the overall grading was unmasked and the graders reevaluated the conventional multimodal images and the widefield SS-OCT en face images.
All 4 imaging modalities used together provided the best strategy for the detection of RPD/SDDs. However, when using widefield en face SS-OCT slab imaging alone, the detection of RPD/SDDs was at least as good as conventional imaging.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 November 2016.
All research outputs
#18,329,159
of 27,629,830 outputs
Outputs from Ophthalmology
#5,911
of 7,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,702
of 308,965 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ophthalmology
#70
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,629,830 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,446 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 308,965 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
