Hitzl W, Hornykewycz K, Grabner G, Reitsamer H A
Universitätsklinik für Augenheilkunde und Optometrie, St.-Johanns-Spital, Paracelsus Medizinische Privatuniversität Salzburg, Osterreich.
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2007 May;224(5):391-5. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-963092.
One of the major shortcomings of longitudinal studies is the fact that instruments and technologies which were used at the beginning of the sampling might be replaced by others during the course of the study. The aim of the present work is to evaluate the relationship of optic disk parameters assessed with different methods and to test statistical possibilities of transforming these parameters into each other.
The 'cup-to-disc ratio', the 'total disc area' and the 'neuroretinal rim area' of the human optic nerve of 131 eyes of 66 patients participating in the Salzburg-Moorfields Collaborative Glaucoma Study were assessed with two different laser scanning methods (TopSS and HRT II. The 'cup-to-disc ratio' was also determined subjectively by ophthalmologists of the glaucoma department. To compare the three data sets, the method of Bland-Altman, paired t-tests, as well as regression analyses were applied.
The 'cup-to-disc ratios' were: HRT II(R): 0.26 (95 % CI: 0.23 - 0.28), subjective assessment of 'cup-to-disc ratio': 0.33 (0.30 - 0.36) and TopSS: 0.43 (0.40 - 0.46). All three results are statistically significantly different (pairwise comparisons, p < 0.00001 each). Bland-Altman analysis shows that the differences of both objective methods exceed a magnitude that can be accepted for clinical purposes. The regression analyses reveal that the slope parameters are significantly different from 1.0. No regression models could be found with sufficiently small differences.
There are significant differences in the 'cup-to-disc Ratios' observed between the three methods. Therefore the application of a 'correction factor' cannot be advocated. Although such factors allow the means of the samples to agree, the differences of individual measurements still remain too large, to be useful for practical purposes.
纵向研究的主要缺点之一是,在抽样开始时使用的仪器和技术可能在研究过程中被其他仪器和技术所取代。本研究的目的是评估用不同方法评估的视盘参数之间的关系,并测试将这些参数相互转换的统计可能性。
对参与萨尔茨堡-摩尔菲尔德青光眼协作研究的66例患者的131只眼睛的人类视神经的“杯盘比”、“视盘总面积”和“神经视网膜边缘面积”,采用两种不同的激光扫描方法(TopSS和HRT II)进行评估。青光眼科室的眼科医生也主观测定了“杯盘比”。为比较这三组数据集,应用了布兰德-奥特曼法、配对t检验以及回归分析。
“杯盘比”分别为:HRT II(R):0.26(95%置信区间:0.23 - 0.28),“杯盘比”的主观评估值:0.33(0.30 - 0.36),TopSS:0.43(0.40 - 0.46)。所有这三个结果在统计学上均有显著差异(两两比较,每组p < 0.00001)。布兰德-奥特曼分析表明,两种客观方法的差异超过了临床可接受的幅度。回归分析显示,斜率参数显著不同于1.0。未发现差异足够小的回归模型。
三种方法测得的“杯盘比”存在显著差异。因此,不提倡应用“校正因子”。尽管这些因子能使样本均值一致,但个体测量值的差异仍然过大,不具有实际应用价值。