Lichter P R
Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1976;74:532-72.
A significant amount of variability exists between observers in designating cup/diac (C/D) ratios. Further, different methods are used for evaluating the size of the cup. On method uses a combination of contour and color, the other specifically measures contour and pallor separately. This study confirms that these methods yeild different numerical results. Interestingly, the "cupping/pallor" observers show no significant difference among one another in C/D determination which may support the notion that cupping observations are more consistent than "standard" C/D ratios. Though both groups feel the cup is larger on stereo compared to monocular viewing, the "cupping/pallor" group demonstrated much greater differences in this regard. However, the evaluation of pallor by the latter group corresponded closely to the C/D ratios of the "standard" group both for nonstereo and stereo. An individual observer is reasonably consistent on repeat evaluation, but at times, inconsistency is quite substantial. These inconsistencies lead to the conclusion that C/D ratios are an inexact method of recording the status of a disc. Except for considerable changes over time, this numerical method is probably not reliable in checking for small disc changes. However, the disc alone can provide clues as to whether it is physiologic or pathologic. Nevertheless, even with expert observers, significant variability exists in interpretation of an optic disc in this regard. Individuals who evaluate the disc cup by cupping and pallor tend to call discs more pathologic than other observers. The clinical implications of this study suggest that certain observers are more accurate than others and certain discs are more easily evaluated than others. Yet, no one method seems foolproof and no specific criteria can as yet distinguish a normal from an abnormal disc. Stereo color transparencies are evaluated more accurately than are nonstereo color prints. Vessel detail and pallor patterns are probably the most useful disc characteristics to observe. In this regard, a C/D ratio does nothing to indicate whether a disc is normal or not. A statement as to the observer's opinion should be made for each disc evaluation in addition to recording the appearance of the disc.
在确定杯盘(C/D)比时,不同观察者之间存在显著差异。此外,评估视杯大小的方法也各不相同。一种方法是结合轮廓和颜色,另一种方法则分别专门测量轮廓和色泽。本研究证实,这些方法会得出不同的数值结果。有趣的是,采用“杯状/色泽”评估方法的观察者在C/D比测定上彼此之间没有显著差异,这可能支持了这样一种观点,即杯状观察比“标准”C/D比更具一致性。尽管两组都认为立体观察时视杯比单眼观察时更大,但“杯状/色泽”组在这方面的差异要大得多。然而,后一组对视盘色泽的评估在非立体和立体观察时都与“标准”组的C/D比密切相关。个体观察者在重复评估时具有一定的一致性,但有时不一致性相当大。这些不一致性得出的结论是,C/D比是记录视盘状态的一种不精确方法。除了随时间有显著变化外,这种数值方法在检查视盘的微小变化时可能并不可靠。然而,仅视盘本身就能提供有关其是生理性还是病理性的线索。尽管如此,即使是专家观察者,在这方面对视盘的解读也存在显著差异。通过杯状和色泽来评估视盘杯的个体往往比其他观察者更容易将视盘判定为病理性。这项研究的临床意义表明,某些观察者比其他观察者更准确,某些视盘比其他视盘更容易评估。然而,似乎没有一种方法是万无一失的,目前也没有特定标准能够区分正常视盘和异常视盘。立体彩色透明片的评估比非立体彩色印刷品更准确。血管细节和色泽模式可能是观察视盘时最有用的特征。在这方面,C/D比对判断视盘是否正常毫无帮助。除了记录视盘的外观外,每次对视盘的评估都应说明观察者的意见。