4.1 Article

Implementation of the new multimodal imaging-based classification of central serous chorioretinopathy

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 32, 期 2, 页码 1044-1049

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/11206721211013651

关键词

Central serous chorioretinopathy; neurosensory detachment; subretinal fluid; classification; multimodal imaging; recurrence; macular neovascularization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study evaluated the implementation of the new multimodal imaging-based classification system for central serous chorioretinopathy (CSCR) and found near perfect agreement between two retinal experts, indicating a reliable reference for accurate diagnosis and treatment of CSCR.
Purpose: To study the implementation of the new multimodal imaging-based classification system of central serous chorioretinopathy (CSCR). Methods: Ninety-three eyes with CSCR with available fundus autofluorescence (FAF), optical coherence tomography (OCT), and OCT angiography at presentation were included in this study. An anonymous data set was classified by two masked graders. Each case was classified as per presence of (i) simple versus complex (< or >2 disc diameters of retinal pigment epithelium abnormality) CSCR; (ii) primary versus recurrent versus resolved CSCR; (iii) persistent (presence of subretinal fluid >6 months) or not; (iv) outer retinal atrophy (ORA); (v) foveal involvement; and (vi) macular neovascularization (MNV). Agreement between the graders was calculated. Results: Kappa value was 0.91 (95% CI 0.8-1.0) for the entire classification; 0.84 (95% CI 0.73-0.95) for simple versus complex; 1.0 (95% CI 1.0-1.0) for primary versus recurrent versus resolved CSCR; 1.0 (95% CI 1.0-1.0) for persistent or not; 0.9 (95% CI 0.81-0.99) for ORA or not; 0.95 (95% CI 0.84-1.0) for presence or absence of MNV; 1.0 (95% CI 1.0-1.0) for presence or absence of foveal involvement. Conclusion: The new multimodal imaging based CSCR classification showed near perfect agreement between two retinal experts.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据