Measurement of optic disc size: equivalence of methods to correct for ocular magnification
Measurement of optic disc size: equivalence of methods to correct for ocular magnification
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/bjo.82.6.643
复制
发表时间：
1998-06-01
影响因子：
4.1
通讯作者：
Hitchings, RA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Garway-Heath, DF;Rudnicka, AR;Hitchings, RA
目的：比较可用于校正由眼睛光学引起的图像放大的方法，并确定这些方法的误差和误差来源。方法-11种方法应用于来自三个独立队列的眼生物测量数据。每种方法都与Bennett的方法进行了比较，Bennett方法使用的生物特征数据最多。每种方法与贝内特的不同之处在于方法的“误差”。结果眼轴测量法的平均误差(+0.5%~+2.6%)和标准偏差(0.6%~1.2%)最低。在仅使用角膜屈光不正和屈光不正的方法中，本文描述的一种新方法的平均误差(-1.4%~+4.4%)和标准偏差(2.9%~4.3%)与海德堡视网膜断层扫描仪(HRT)的误差最低。Littmann法的平均误差最大(+2.2~+7.1%)。利特曼的修正比HRT的修正大3.5%到3.7%。新方法和HRT方法与Bennett的“缩短轴长”方法之间的平均差异为-1.3%至+2.0%。“角膜屈光不正和屈光不正”方法的误差与眼轴长度有关。Bennett的简化眼轴长度方法与更详细的计算差别不大，而且比单独使用角膜屈光不正和屈光不正的方法更准确。如果轴长未知，新的方法和HRT方法给出的结果与缩写的轴长方法最接近。
Aims-To compare methods available to correct the magnification of images that result from the optics of the eye and identify errors, and source of error, of the methods.Methods-11 methods were applied to ocular biometry data from three independent cohorts. Each method was compared with the method of Bennett, which uses most biometric data. The difference between each method and Bennett's is the "error" of the method. The relation between the error and axial length, ametropia, and keratometry was explored by Linear regression analysis.Results-Methods using axial length had the lowest mean (+0.5 to +2.6%) and standard deviation (0.6 to 1.2%) of errors. Of methods using keratometry and ametropia only, the lowest mean (-1.4% to +4.4%) and standard deviation (2.9 to 4.3%) of errors was found for a new method described in this paper, and that used by the Heidelberg retina tomograph (HRT). The highest mean error (+2.2 to +7.1%) was found for Littmann's method. Littmann's correction was larger than the HRT's by 3.5 to 3.7%. The mean difference between the new and HRT methods and the "abbreviated axial length" method of Bennett is -1.3 to +2.0%. The error of the "keratometry and ametropia" methods is related to axial length.Conclusions-Methods using axial length are most accurate. The abbreviated axial length method of Bennett differs little from more detailed calculations and is appreciably more accurate than methods using keratometry and ametropia alone. If axial length is unknown, the new and the HRT methods give results closest to the abbreviated axial length method.