Reliability of Different Image Analysis Methods for Scanning Laser Doppler Flowmetry

Abstract

Purpose: To assess reliability and reproducibility of different analysis methods for retinal capillary flow, volume, and velocity from scanning laser Doppler flowmetry (SLDF) topography. Material and Methods: SLDF topography analysis using the default retinal flowmeter (HRF) were compared to that using automatic full-field perfusion image analyzer (AFFPIA) and quantified as intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Results: The AFFPIA full-field method had the highest reliability, with ICC 0.99 for capillary flow. The reproducibility using the AFFPIA full-field method was high ICC 0.74 for capillary flow. Conclusions: The AFFPIA full-field method is highly reliable and superior to the default HRF software.

Effect of Korean Red Ginseng Supplementation on Ocular Blood Flow in Patients with Glaucoma

“…Because HRF takes 2 sec to capture a topographic image when working from the top left to the bottom right [36], the resulting image is subject to special heterogeneity in circulatory parameters due to heart beat-associated pulsations [44]. Newer image software (AFFPIA) that uses the entire field of topographic images was reported to improve reliability [37,[45][46][47]. The AFFPIA full-field option provides the highest reliability because it includes the largest possible image area for analysis and automatically adjusts for the quality of the topographic image, "auto-cleaning" and masking any extra-wide vessels, ONH, and over-or under-exposed pixels [37].…”

Microvascular effects of the inhibition of dipeptidylpeptidase IV by linagliptin in nondiabetic hypertensive patients

“…The reliability of the method is in the range of 0.96-0.99. For further details, see [12]. Briefly, a retinal sample of 2.56  0.64  0.30 mm was scanned within 2 s at a resolution of 256 points  64 lines  128 lines.…”

Improvement in Retinal Capillary Rarefaction After Valsartan Treatment in Hypertensive Patients

“…Each image was approved and validated by a scientist blinded to the clinical characteristics of patients. Reliability of RCF and WLR measurements has been previously evaluated (coefficient of variation <10%) …”