Communicating research findings goes more smoothly when all of your colleagues are on the same page, especially when it comes to new technology. A recent study surveyed members of the International Uveitis Study Group on their preferred terminology when reporting on OCT-angiography (OCT-A) findings in uveitis, and the disparities were surprising.
The researchers compared the individual responses of experts, defined as those with several publications on OCT-A, with uveitis specialists (users) who have fewer than five publications on the field of uveitis and OCT-A. A total of 108 uveitis specialists participated and were included in the study. Of these, 23 were considered experts.
Both groups agreed on the definitions of widefield OCT-A and neovascularization in uveitis, but they differed in other areas, such as quantification of ischemia, definitions of “large” areas of ischemia and on terms used to describe decreased OCT-A signal from different causes. The researchers identified a “unanimous need” for both groups to distinguish the size of a decreased OCT-A signal in uveitis and agreed-upon terms to describe the different causes for a decrease. The researchers noted no singular quantitative measurement of decreased flow, specifically for widefield OCT-A.
The team concluded that though there’s broad agreement in terminology used by uveitis specialists, there were significant differences in terminology between users and experts. This indicates a need for standardized nomenclature among all uveitis specialists for reporting and clinical use.
Pichi F, Salas EC, de Smet MD, et al. Standardisation of optical coherence tomography angiography nomenclature in uveitis: First survey results. Br J Ophthalmology. July 29, 2020. [Epub ahead of print].