Skip to main content
PMC home page
The British Journal of Ophthalmology logoLink to The British Journal of Ophthalmology
. 2001 Nov;85(11):1347–1351. doi: 10.1136/bjo.85.11.1347

A comparison of stereoscopic and monoscopic evaluation of optic disc topography using a digital optic disc stereo camera

B Parkin 1, G Shuttleworth 1, M Costen 1, C Davison 1
PMCID: PMC1723792  PMID: 11673304

Abstract

AIMS—To compare stereophotographic and monophotographic optic disc assessments made using a digital optic disc stereo camera.
METHODS—Stereo digital optic disc photographs of 150 selected patients who had presented to a glaucoma clinic were assessed by two masked observers on separate occasions using (1) the stereophotographs and a stereoviewer, (2) a single image from the same stereopair. Results were analysed for both right and left eyes separately. 95% tolerance limits for change (TC) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated and a multivariate analysis using a general linear model for repeated measures was performed.
RESULTS—A total of 201 optic disc images of 150 patients (84 females, 108 left eyes) were analysed. Mean age of patients was 64 years. The results for right eyes are as follows (similar results were obtained for left eyes). Intraobserver (stereoscopic compared to monoscopic) measurements of: horizontal cup:disc ratios (CDR), ICC = 0.5995 and 0.7269, TC = 34% and 27%; vertical CDR, ICC = 0.8298 and 0.817, TC = 25% and 27%; area CDR, ICC = 0.7757 and 0.8259, TC = 28% and 25%; circumference CDR, ICC = 0.7618 and 0.8103, TC = 28% and 25%. Interobserver measurements of: horizontal CDR, ICC stereoscopic (SS) = 0.7287; monoscopic (MS) = 0.5030; TC SS = 30%; MS = 32%; vertical CDR, ICC SS = 0.8439; MS = 0.7106; TC SS = 25%; MS = 31%; area CDR, ICC SS = 0.8392; MS = 0.6276; TC SS = 26%; MS = 32%; circumference CDR, ICC SS = 0.8433; MS = 0.6438, TC SS = 26%; MS = 31%. Systematic bias between observers and between methods was within acceptable limits.
CONCLUSIONS—This study using a digital stereo camera indicates that there may be little benefit of stereoscopic imaging over monoscopic imaging despite demonstrating small but inconsistent differences between both observers and methods.



Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (132.0 KB).

Figure 1  .

Figure 1  

Open in a new tab

Observer 2 stereoscopic versus monoscopic assessment for left eyes, vertical cup:disc ratios (V-CDR).

Figure 2  .

Figure 2  

Open in a new tab

Mean and 95% confidence intervals for each of the optic disc variables measured, with right and left eyes analysed separately.

Figure 3  .

Figure 3  

Open in a new tab

Observer 1 versus 2, monoscopic assessment, horizontal cup:disc ratios (H-CDR) for left eyes.

Figure 4  .

Figure 4  

Open in a new tab

Observer 1 versus 2, stereoscopic assessment, horizontal cup:disc ratios (H-CDR) for left eyes.

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Abrams L. S., Scott I. U., Spaeth G. L., Quigley H. A., Varma R. Agreement among optometrists, ophthalmologists, and residents in evaluating the optic disc for glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1994 Oct;101(10):1662–1667. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(94)31118-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bland J. M., Altman D. G. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307–310. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Boes D. A., Spaeth G. L., Mills R. P., Smith M., Nicholl J. E., Clifton B. C. Relative optic cup depth assessments using three stereo photograph viewing methods. J Glaucoma. 1996 Feb;5(1):9–14. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Kahn H. A., Leibowitz H., Ganley J. P., Kini M., Colton T., Nickerson R., Dawber T. R. Randomized controlled clinical trial. National Eye Institute workshop for ophthalmologists. Standardizing diagnostic procedures. Am J Ophthalmol. 1975 May;79(5):768–775. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Klein B. E., Moss S. E., Magli Y. L., Klein R., Johnson J. C., Roth H. Optic disc cupping as clinically estimated from photographs. Ophthalmology. 1987 Nov;94(11):1481–1483. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(87)33265-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Krohn M. A., Keltner J. L., Johnson C. A. Comparison of photographic techniques and films used in stereophotogrammetry of the optic disk. Am J Ophthalmol. 1979 Nov;88(5):859–863. doi: 10.1016/0002-9394(79)90563-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Lichter P. R. Variability of expert observers in evaluating the optic disc. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1976;74:532–572. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Rosenthal A. R., Kottler M. S., Donaldson D. D., Falconer D. G. Comparative reproducibility of the digital photogrammetric procedure utilizing three methods of stereophotography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1977 Jan;16(1):54–60. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Schwartz J. T. Methodologic differences and measurement of cup-disc ratio: an epidemiologic assessment. Arch Ophthalmol. 1976 Jul;94(7):1101–1105. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1976.03910040021004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Shuttleworth G. N., Khong C. H., Diamond J. P. A new digital optic disc stereo camera: intraobserver and interobserver repeatability of optic disc measurements. Br J Ophthalmol. 2000 Apr;84(4):403–407. doi: 10.1136/bjo.84.4.403. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Spry P. G., Spencer I. C., Sparrow J. M., Peters T. J., Brookes S. T., Gray S., Baker I., Furber J. E., Easty D. L. The Bristol Shared Care Glaucoma Study: reliability of community optometric and hospital eye service test measures. Br J Ophthalmol. 1999 Jun;83(6):707–712. doi: 10.1136/bjo.83.6.707. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Varma R., Steinmann W. C., Scott I. U. Expert agreement in evaluating the optic disc for glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1992 Feb;99(2):215–221. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(92)31990-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The British Journal of Ophthalmology are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES