Glaucomatous Optic Neuropathy Evaluation (GONE) Project: the Effect of Monoscopic Versus Stereoscopic Viewing Conditions on Optic Nerve Evaluation
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Purpose: To determine whether monoscopic vs stereoscopic viewing impacts evaluation of optic disc photographs for glaucoma diagnosis in an expert population.
Design: Prospective observational study.
Methods: Twenty pairs of high-quality monoscopic and stereoscopic photographs of similar size and magnification (ie, 40 images), were selected to demonstrate a range of optic disc features from a total of 197 eyes of 197 patients with glaucoma and normal subjects recruited from a tertiary clinic. These were presented in randomized order via an interactive platform (http://stereo.gone-project.com/). Participants assessed 9 topographic features and estimated glaucoma likelihood for each photograph. Main outcome measures were intra- and inter-observer agreement.
Results: There was good intra-observer agreement between monoscopic and stereoscopic assessments of glaucoma likelihood (κw = 0.56). There was also good to substantial agreement for peripapillary atrophy (κw = 0.65), cup shape (κw = 0.65), retinal nerve fiber layer loss (κw = 0.69), vertical cup-to-disc ratio (κw = 0.58), and disc shape (κw = 0.57). However, intra-observer agreement was only fair to moderate for disc tilt, cup depth, and disc size (κw = 0.46-0.49). Inter-observer agreement for glaucoma likelihood in monoscopic photographs (κw = 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.55-0.67) was substantial and not lower than in stereoscopic photographs (κw = 0.59, CI = 0.54-0.65). Monoscopic photographs did not lead to lower levels of inter-observer agreement compared to stereoscopic photographs in the assessment of any optic disc characteristics, for example disc size (mono κw = 0.65, stereo κw = 0.52) and cup-to-disc ratio (mono κw = 0.72, stereo κw = 0.62).
Conclusions: For expert observers in the evaluation of optic disc photographs for glaucoma likelihood, monoscopic optic disc photographs did not appear to represent a significant disadvantage compared to stereoscopic photographs.
Big data for imaging assessment in glaucoma.
da Costa D, Medeiros F Taiwan J Ophthalmol. 2024; 14(3):299-318.
PMID: 39430345 PMC: 11488812. DOI: 10.4103/tjo.TJO-D-24-00079.
Xu Y, Liu H, Sun R, Wang H, Huo Y, Wang N Heliyon. 2024; 10(13):e33813.
PMID: 39040392 PMC: 11261845. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e33813.
Diener R, Renz A, Eckhard F, Segbert H, Eter N, Malcherek A Diagnostics (Basel). 2024; 14(11).
PMID: 38893600 PMC: 11171940. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14111073.
Jan C, He M, Vingrys A, Zhu Z, Stafford R Eye (Lond). 2024; 38(11):2003-2013.
PMID: 38514852 PMC: 11269618. DOI: 10.1038/s41433-024-03026-z.
Gandhi M, Rajsrinivas D, Jain M, Sabharwal S, Majumdar A, Dubey S Indian J Ophthalmol. 2023; 72(2):240-245.
PMID: 38099578 PMC: 10941929. DOI: 10.4103/IJO.IJO_444_23.