title: Comparison of parameters from Heidelberg Retina Tomographs 2 and 3.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare stereometric parameters and classification results from the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph version 2 (HRT2); HRT3; and HRT3 Glaucoma Probability Score (GPS), an automated method of obtaining optic nerve head analysis without the need for manual definition of disc margin.
  
  
  METHODS
  Retrospective cross-sectional study.
  
  
  METHODS
  Five hundred four eyes from 281 consecutive subjects (glaucoma, glaucoma suspect, and healthy) evaluated in a glaucoma clinic.
  
  
  METHODS
  All participants had HRT2 scanning of the optic nerve head. Inclusion criteria were scans with good centration and focus, even illumination, an overall quality score by HRT3 of acceptable or better, and standard deviation < 50 mum. A Bland-Altman analysis was used for the comparison of HRT2 and HRT3. From these results, calibration equations were determined to permit conversion of the measurements between devices. The agreement between HRT2 and HRT3 Moorfields regression analysis (MRA) and HRT3 GPS classification methods was measured using kappa statistics.
  
  
  METHODS
  Heidelberg Retina Tomograph version 2 and HRT3 stereometric parameters, MRA, and global GPS.
  
  
  RESULTS
  There was a statistically significant difference between HRT2 and HRT3 global disc area, rim area, cup area, rim volume, cup volume, height variation contour, and retinal nerve fiber layer cross-sectional area stereometric parameters. All of those parameters were smaller using HRT3, due to a manufacturer-reported horizontal scaling error of 4% in HRT2 that was corrected in HRT3. kappas for agreement were 0.60 between classifications (within normal limits, borderline, and outside normal limits) of MRA by HRT2 and HRT3 and 0.47 between HRT3 MRA and GPS.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The HRT3 generally provided smaller stereometric disc measurements than HRT2. There was no clear conversion between HRT3 and GPS parameters, as the 2 methods for measuring the stereometric parameters differ.
authors: University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Eye Center, Eye and Ear Institute, Ophthalmology and Visual Science Research Center, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA.
authors: Michelle L
authors: ML
authors: Gabriele
authors: Gadi
authors: G
authors: Wollstein
authors: Richard A
authors: RA
authors: Bilonick
authors: Zvia
authors: Z
authors: Burgansky-Eliash
authors: Hiroshi
authors: H
authors: Ishikawa
authors: Larry E
authors: LE
authors: Kagemann
authors: Joel S
authors: JS
authors: Schuman
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D002138:Calibration; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D005260:Female; D005901:Glaucoma / Q000473:pathology*; D006801:Humans; D021621:Imaging, Three-Dimensional; D008297:Male; D018613:Microscopy, Confocal / Q000379:methods*; D008875:Middle Aged; D009412:Nerve Fibers / Q000473:pathology; D009887:Ophthalmoscopy / Q000379:methods*; D009898:Optic Disk / Q000473:pathology*; D012189:Retrospective Studies
references: Br J Ophthalmol. 1999 Jun;83(6):664-9
references: 10340972
references: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000 Jun;41(7):1730-42
references: 10845593
references: Arch Ophthalmol. 2001 Oct;119(10):1492-9
references: 11594950
references: Ophthalmology. 2002 Jun;109(6):1072-7
references: 12045046
references: Ophthalmology. 2007 Mar;114(3):466-71
references: 17141321
references: J Glaucoma. 1997 Apr;6(2):78-82
references: 9098814
references: J Glaucoma. 1997 Aug;6(4):221-30
references: 9264301
references: Ophthalmology. 1998 Aug;105(8):1557-63
references: 9709774
references: Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
references: 2868172