Hotelbuchung
Hotel Registration
Grußwort
Welcome address
Beteiligte Gesellschaften
Societies involved
DOG Information
DOG Information
Eröffnung des Kongresses
Opening Ceremony
Preise
Awards
Ablauf der Tagung 2003
General overview of congress
Lageplan der Räumlichkeiten
Map of Congress Center
Wissenschaftliche Themen
Scientific topics
Symposien
Symposia
Wissenschaftliches Programm
Scientific program
Posterpräsentationen
Poster Presentation
Kurse
Courses
Begleitende Veranstaltungen
Accompanying program
Arbeitssitzungen
Working sessions
Rahmenprogramm
Social program
Allgemeine Informationen
General Information
Autorenindex
Index of Authors
Industrieaussteller
Commercial exhibitors
Sponsoren
Sponsors
Impressum
DOG Homepage
Abstract
Abstract
Analyzation of the Nerve Fiber Layer using the GDx® System Requires Highly Experienced Observers
Welsandt G., Jonescu-Cuypers J., Kazakova D., Krieglstein G. K., Mietz H.
Department of Ophthalmology, University of Cologne, Germany
Purpose: Analyzation of the nerve fiber layer is an increasingly frequently performed clinical examination. In an effort to make the handling of the GDx® system easier for the person performing the examination, the software supplied by the manufacturer includes specific arithmetic algorithms that are designed to reflect the accuracy of the measurement. It would be desirable to have an easy-to-use system, so that even technical assistants can perform the examination with little experience and high accuracy. For a first test, we have chosen two groups of well-trained ophthalmologists performing routine measurements using the GDx® system.
Method: Group one of the ophthalmologists had an experience of more than 1.000 optic nerve head examinations using a similar system. Group two of the ophthalmologists had an experience of less than 20 examinations. Factors that were evaluated included the total time needed for the examination, image vignetting, overall image quality and even image illumination. Statistics were performed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test.
Results: 14% of the examinations could not be evaluated because of poor image quality and centering. The time needed for the examination was about three times more in group 2 as compared to group 1 (p<0.001). Overall image quality was better in group 1