摘要
各种眼底影像检查设备、技术应用过程中,不同设备之间图像数据格式缺乏标准和统~,相关数据不能进行对比分析;检查操作不当导致采集的数据缺失或图像质量不稳定;缺少相应的评价指南致使影像数据判读评价结果差异较大等矛盾日渐突出。不仅影响了眼底影像检查设备的应用效率,制约了眼底影像检查资源的共享与交流,而且也妨碍了眼底影像检查诊断水平的进一步提高。因此,亟待规范眼底影像数据采集仪器规格、采集方案及数据信息的表现形式;加强眼底影像数据采集标准操作流程培训,确保数据完整、真实、可靠;制定眼底影像数据评价指南,建立远程会诊系统、读片中心、质量控制中心在内的眼底影像数据综合评价体系,提升眼底影像检查设备的应用效率,节约公共卫生资源,推动眼底影像检查诊断技术应用水平的不断提高。
There are lots of imaging technologies in the ocular fundus disease field, including ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM), fundus fluorescein angiography (FFA), indocynine green angiograpby (ICGA), fundus photograph (FP) and Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT). However there is no standard for image formats among various fundus imaging equipment, technology application processes, thus the relevant data cannot be compared and analyzed. And improper operation of the instruments causes unstable image quality or image missing. Also lack of appropriate evaluation guidelines results in different interpretation of same image data. These three factors not only affect the fundus imaging device application efficiency, limit the sharing of fundus imaging resource, but also hinder the development of fundus imaging diagnostic applications. Therefore, instrument types, data acquisition protocol and data presenting formats should be standardized for ocular fundus image acquisition. The technicians who operate the machine should be trained regularly to follow the standard operating procedure of data acquiring, thus to ensure integrity, truthful and reliable data is collected. In order to enhance the application efficiency of fundus imaging equipment, save public health resources, to promote fundus imaging diagnostic technology development, we need to develop evaluation guidelines for fundus image data, establish a comprehensive system including remote consultation center, reading center and quality control center.
出处
《中华眼底病杂志》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2013年第5期449-452,共4页
Chinese Journal of Ocular Fundus Diseases
关键词
诊断技术
眼科
数据收集
方法
数据收集
标准
述评
Diagnostic techniques, ophthalmologie
Data collection/methods
Data collection/standards
Editorial