Munk Marion R, Turgut Ferhat, Faes Livia, Jaggi Damian, Freund K Bailey, Sadda Srinivas R, Peto Tunde, Wang Ruikang K, Pircher Michael, Curcio Christine A, Sun Jennifer, Kashani Amir H
Gutblick Practice Group, Pfäffikon, Switzerland; Department of Ophthalmology, Inselspital, University Hospital Bern, Bern, Switzerland; Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Gutblick Practice Group, Pfäffikon, Switzerland; Stadtspital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland; Department of Ophthalmology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Ophthalmol Retina. 2025 Jul;9(7):645-654. doi: 10.1016/j.oret.2025.01.015. Epub 2025 Jan 31.
To develop a consensus nomenclature for OCT angiography (OCTA) findings in retinal vascular diseases (RVDs).
Expert consensus using standardized online surveys with modified Likert scale.
Retinal vascular disease 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; interquartile range [IQR] ≤3), "Strong Consensus" (median ≥8; IQR ≤2), and "Refined Strong Consensus" (median ≥8, IQR ≤2, with ≥70% of responses in the 8-10 range). A multidisciplinary expert panel refined the terminology through 3 survey rounds, leading to a final survey conducted by IntRIS members.
Consensus on OCTA nomenclature in RVD.
The literature review identified 58 relevant papers, yielding 51 quantitative and 108 qualitative terms. A series of 3 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).
This study establishes a strong consensus framework for reporting OCTA findings in RVD for clinical and scientific contexts.
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
制定视网膜血管疾病（RVD）中光学相干断层扫描血管造影（OCTA）结果的共识命名法。
采用标准化在线调查及改良李克特量表的专家共识法。
视网膜血管疾病成像专家、OCT生物医学工程师以及国际视网膜成像协会（IntRIS）成员
通过PubMed文献综述确定形成共识构建过程基础的定量和定性术语，采用改良德尔菲法。共识水平分为“接受”（中位数≥6）、“相当一致”（中位数6 - 7；四分位间距[IQR]≤3）、“强烈共识”（中位数≥8；IQR≤2）和“精确强烈共识”（中位数≥8，IQR≤2，且8 - 10范围内的回复≥70%）。一个多学科专家小组通过三轮调查完善术语，最终由IntRIS成员进行最终调查。
RVD中OCTA命名法的共识。
文献综述确定了58篇相关论文，产生了51个定量术语和108个定性术语。通过一系列三轮调查来完善描述OCTA结果的命名框架。所选框架包括一个通用术语（“OCTA信号”）、形容词术语（“存在/不存在”“减少/增加”“正常/异常”）以及描述性/病因学术语（“原因不明”“由于阻塞”“由于无灌注”）。在44名IntRIS成员的最终调查中，该框架在总体接受方面达成了强烈共识（中位数8.0；IQR 7.0 - 9.0）。术语“OCTA信号”符合精确强烈共识标准（中位数8.0；IQR 8.0 - 9.0，且8 - 10范围内的回复≥70%）。包括“不存在/存在”和“增加/减少”在内的形容词术语也获得了强烈共识评分（中位数8.0；IQR 7.0 - 9.0）。同样，描述性/病因学术语也达成了强烈共识（中位数8.0；IQR 7.0 - 9.0）。该框架在临床实践和科学报告中的采用获得了强烈共识（临床：中位数8.0；IQR 7.0 - 9.0；科学：中位数9.0；IQR 8.5 - 10.0）。
本研究为在临床和科学背景下报告RVD中的OCTA结果建立了一个强烈共识框架。
在本文末尾的脚注和披露中可能会发现专有或商业披露信息。
