Microvascular damage assessed by OCT Angiography for glaucoma diagnosis: a systematic review of the most discriminative regions

Amerens Bekkers^1,2#, Noor Borren^1,2#, Vera Ederveen^1,2#, Ella Fokkinga^1,2#, Danilo Andrade De Jesus^1,3, Luisa Sánchez Brea¹, Stefan Klein¹, Theo van Walsum¹, João Barbosa‐Breda^3,4,5, Ingeborg Stalmans^3,6

¹Biomedical Imaging Group Rotterdam, Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

²Clinical Technology, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

³Research Group Ophthalmology, Department of Neurosciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

⁴Ophthalmology Department, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário São João, Porto, Portugal

⁵Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

⁶Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

Keywords: glaucoma, OCTA, review, erratum

In the article, ‘Microvascular damage assessed by optical coherence tomography angiography for glaucoma diagnosis: a systematic review of the most discriminative regions’ by Bekkers et al. (2020), the results reported from the paper of Rabiolo et al (2018) were not extracted correctly. In their study, Rabiolo et al (2018) reported an analysis of patients with diabetic retinopathy and patients with glaucoma. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) reported for the patients with diabetic retinopathy were wrongly included in place of the AUROCs for discrimination of glaucoma from healthy eyes at the peripapillary region. While these changes affect some of the figures and tables displayed on the manuscript, they have a minor effect on the threshold used for quality assessment and, hence, they do not alter the subsequent analysis nor the conclusions presented in the review: the superficial layer at the peripapillary region is preferable for assessing glaucomatous vascular damage.