Measurements of linear dimensions on fundus photographs: Comparison between photographic film and digital systems

Eye

Volumn 17, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 619-622

  Musadiq, M ^a   Patsoura, E ^a   Hughes, S ^a   Yang, Y C ^a  

^a Wolverhampton and Midlands Counties Eye Infirmary   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Digital measuring tool; Fundus photography; Linear measurements

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; CAMERA; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DIGITAL COMPUTER; EYE FUNDUS; EYE PHOTOGRAPHY; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGING SYSTEM; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS;

EID: 0042168864     PISSN: 0950222X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/sj.eye.6700418     Document Type: Article

References (7)

1. Mimoun G, Soubrane G, Coscas G. Clinical experience with digitised fluorescein angiography. Int Ophthalmol 1991; 15: 41-46.
2. Iester M, Mochi B, Lai S, Rathschuler F, Rolando M, Ciurlo G. Intraimage reproducibility of measurements in the macular area using a computerized system. Int Ophthalmol 1997; 21: 153-159.
3. Bird AC, Bressler NM, Bressler SB, Chisholm IH, Coscas G, Davis MD. An international classification and grading system for age-related maculopathy and age-related macular degeneration. Survey Ophthalmol 1995; 395: 367-374.
4. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 307-310.
5. Lee J, Koh D, Ong CN. Statistical evaluation of agreement between two methods for measuring a quantitative variable. Comput Biol Med 1989; 191: 61-70.
6. Arnold JV, Gates WC, Taylor KM. Possible errors in the measurement of retinal lesions. Invest Ophthamol Vis Sci 1993; 348: 2576-2580.
7. Rudnicka AR, Burk ROW, Habil M, Edgar DF, Fitzke FW. Magnification characteristics of fundal imaging systems. Ophthalmology 1998; 105: 2186-2192.