Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2001 Nov;85(11):1347-51.
doi: 10.1136/bjo.85.11.1347.

A comparison of stereoscopic and monoscopic evaluation of optic disc topography using a digital optic disc stereo camera

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

A comparison of stereoscopic and monoscopic evaluation of optic disc topography using a digital optic disc stereo camera

B Parkin et al. Br J Ophthalmol. 2001 Nov.

Abstract

Aims: To compare stereophotographic and monophotographic optic disc assessments made using a digital optic disc stereo camera.

Methods: Stereo digital optic disc photographs of 150 selected patients who had presented to a glaucoma clinic were assessed by two masked observers on separate occasions using (1) the stereophotographs and a stereoviewer, (2) a single image from the same stereopair. Results were analysed for both right and left eyes separately. 95% tolerance limits for change (TC) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated and a multivariate analysis using a general linear model for repeated measures was performed.

Results: A total of 201 optic disc images of 150 patients (84 females, 108 left eyes) were analysed. Mean age of patients was 64 years. The results for right eyes are as follows (similar results were obtained for left eyes). Intraobserver (stereoscopic compared to monoscopic) measurements of: horizontal cup:disc ratios (CDR), ICC = 0.5995 and 0.7269, TC = 34% and 27%; vertical CDR, ICC = 0.8298 and 0.817, TC = 25% and 27%; area CDR, ICC = 0.7757 and 0.8259, TC = 28% and 25%; circumference CDR, ICC = 0.7618 and 0.8103, TC = 28% and 25%. Interobserver measurements of: horizontal CDR, ICC stereoscopic (SS) = 0.7287; monoscopic (MS) = 0.5030; TC SS = 30%; MS = 32%; vertical CDR, ICC SS = 0.8439; MS = 0.7106; TC SS = 25%; MS = 31%; area CDR, ICC SS = 0.8392; MS = 0.6276; TC SS = 26%; MS = 32%; circumference CDR, ICC SS = 0.8433; MS = 0.6438, TC SS = 26%; MS = 31%. Systematic bias between observers and between methods was within acceptable limits.

Conclusions: This study using a digital stereo camera indicates that there may be little benefit of stereoscopic imaging over monoscopic imaging despite demonstrating small but inconsistent differences between both observers and methods.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Observer 2 stereoscopic versus monoscopic assessment for left eyes, vertical cup:disc ratios (V-CDR).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Mean and 95% confidence intervals for each of the optic disc variables measured, with right and left eyes analysed separately.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Observer 1 versus 2, monoscopic assessment, horizontal cup:disc ratios (H-CDR) for left eyes.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Observer 1 versus 2, stereoscopic assessment, horizontal cup:disc ratios (H-CDR) for left eyes.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Br J Ophthalmol. 1999 Jun;83(6):707-12 - PubMed
    1. Br J Ophthalmol. 2000 Apr;84(4):403-7 - PubMed
    1. Am J Ophthalmol. 1975 May;79(5):768-75 - PubMed
    1. Arch Ophthalmol. 1976 Jul;94(7):1101-5 - PubMed
    1. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1977 Jan;16(1):54-60 - PubMed
  NODES
Idea 1
idea 1
Project 1
twitter 2