» Articles » PMID: 39894444

Standardization of Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography Nomenclature in Retinal Vascular Diseases: Consensus-based Recommendations

Overview
Date 2025 Feb 2
PMID 39894444
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To develop a consensus nomenclature for Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography (OCTA) findings in retinal vascular diseases (RVD).

Design: Expert consensus using standardized online surveys with modified Likert scale.

Participants: RVD imaging experts, OCT biomedical engineers and the members of the International Retinal Imaging Society (IntRIS) METHODS: A PubMed literature review identified quantitative and qualitative terms forming the basis for a consensus-building process using a modified Delphi method. Agreement levels were categorized as "Accepted" (median ≥ 6), "Considerable Consensus" (median 6-7, IQR ≤ 3), "Strong Consensus" (median ≥ 8, IQR ≤ 2), and "Refined Strong Consensus" (median ≥ 8, IQR ≤ 2, with ≥ 70% responses in the 8-10 range). A multidisciplinary expert panel refined the terminology through three survey rounds, leading to a final survey conducted by IntRIS members.

Main Outcome Measures: Consensus on OCTA nomenclature in RVD RESULTS: The literature review identified 58 relevant papers, yielding 51 quantitative and 108 qualitative terms. A series of three surveys was used to refine the nomenclature framework for describing OCTA findings. The selected framework includes a generic term ("OCTA signal"), adjective terms ("presence/absence", "decreased/increased", "normal/abnormal"), and descriptive/etiologic terms ("of unknown cause", "due to blockage", "due to non-perfusion"). In the final survey among 44 IntRIS members, the framework achieved strong consensus for overall acceptance (median: 8.0, IQR: 7.0-9.0). The term "OCTA signal" met refined strong consensus criteria (median: 8.0, IQR: 8.0-9.0, with ≥ 70% of responses in the 8-10 range). Adjective terms, including "absence/presence" and "increased/decreased," were also rated with strong consensus (median: 8.0, IQR: 7.0-9.0). Similarly, descriptive/etiologic terms achieved strong consensus (median: 8.0, IQR: 7.0-9.0). Adoption of the framework for clinical practice and scientific reporting was rated with strong consensus (clinical: median 8.0, IQR: 7.0-9.0; scientific: median 9.0, IQR: 8.5-10.0).

Conclusions: This study establishes a strong consensus framework for reporting OCTA findings in RVD for clinical and scientific contexts.