Transitioning from stratus OCT to cirrus OCT: a comparison and a proposed equation to convert central subfield macular thickness measurements in healthy subjects

  • Gelareh AbediEmail author
  • Payal Patal
  • Gheorghe Doros
  • Manju L. Subramanian
Medical Ophthalmology



The purpose of this paper is to study the differences between central subfield macular thickness (CSMT) measurements obtained by time-domain Stratus optical coherence tomography (OCT) and Cirrus spectral domain OCT (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA) and to formulate an equation to convert CSMT values from one to the other.


CSMT were measured by both Stratus Macula OCT and Cirrus Macula OCT in 46 healthy subjects. Agreement between measurements was calculated using Lin’s concordance coefficient.


The average age of our group was 30 with the logMAR visual acuity of −0.015. The Stratus CSMT measurement (mean ± standard deviation) 193.91 ± 21.7 was statistically significant from the Cirrus CSMT measurement 252.82 ± 28.4 (p < 0.001). The transformation equation 0.76×−0.51 from Cirrus to Stratus resulted in values that best agreed with the observed Stratus OCT values.


We identified a significant difference of CSMT measurements between Stratus and Cirrus. The Cirrus typically gave a higher value of CSMT. We derived a linear equation to convert the measurements from Cirrus to Stratus which resulted in transformed values that concord with the observed Stratus OCT values.


Central subfield macular thickness (CSMT) Time domain stratus OCT Spectral domain cirrus OCT Refractive error Linear transformation Lin’s concordance coefficient 



The authors would like to thank Mr. Mark Houston for providing the OCT imaging.


None of the authors have any financial interests to disclose.

Supplementary material

417_2011_1725_MOESM1_ESM.doc (26 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 25 kb)


  1. 1.
    Huang D, Swanson EA, Lin CP, Schuman JS, Stinson WG, Chang W, Hee MR, Flotte T, Gregory K, Puliafito CA (1991) Optical coherence tomography. Science 254:1178–1181PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Budenz DL, Chang RT, Huang X, Knighton RW, Tielsch JM (2005) Reproducibility of retinal nerve fiber thickness measurements using the Stratus OCT in normal and glaucomatous eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 46:2440–2243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Paunescu LA, Schuman JS, Price LL, Stark PC, Beaton S, Ishikawa H, Wollstein G, Fujimoto JG (2004) Reproducibility of nerve fiber thickness, macular thickness and optic nerve head measurements using Stratus OCT. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 45:1716–1724PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carpineto P, Ciancaglini M, Zuppardi E, Falconio G, Doronzo E, Mastropasqua L (2003) Reliability of nerve fiber layer thickness measurements using optical coherence tomography in normal and glaucomatous eyes. Ophthalmology 110:190–195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schuman JS, Pedut-Kloizman T, Pakter H, Wang N, Guedes V, Huang L, Pieroth L, Scott W, Hee MR, Fujimoto JG, Ishikawa H, Bilonick RA, Kagemann L, Wollstein G (2007) Optical coherence tomography and histologic measurements of nerve fiber layer thickness in normal and glaucomatous monkey eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 48:3645–3654PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blumenthal EZ, Parikh RS, Pe’er J, Naik M, Kaliner E, Cohen MJ, Prabakaran S, Kogan M, Thomas R (2009) Retinal nerve fiber layer imaging compared with histological measurement in human eye. Eye 23:171–175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Menke MN, Dabov S, Strum V (2009) Comparison of three different optical coherence tomography models for total macular thickness measurements in healthy controls. Ophthalmologica 223:352–357PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sadda SR, Wu Z, Walsh AC, Richine L, Dougall J, Cortez R, LaBree LD (2006) Errors in retinal thickness measurements obtained by optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology 13(2):285–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Krebs I, Haas P, Zeiler F, Binder S (2008) Optical coherence tomography: limits of the retinal-mapping program in age-related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmology 92(7):933–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wolf-Schnurrbusch UE, Ceklic L, Brinkmann CK, Iliev ME, Frey M, Rothenbuehler SP, Enzmann V, Wolf S (2009) Macular thickness measurements in healthy eyes using six different optical coherence tomography instruments. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 0: iovs.08-2970v1Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sung KR, Kim DY, Park SB, Kook MS (2009) Comparison of retinal nerve fiber layer thickness measured by cirrus HD and stratus optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology 116(7):1264–1270PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    R Development Core Team (2009) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL Accessed on January 15, 2010
  13. 13.
    Lin LI (1989) A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 45:255–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lin LI (1992) Assay validation using the concordance correlation coefficient. Biometrics 48:599–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lin LI (2000) A note on the concordance correlation coefficient. Biometrics 56:324–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gelareh Abedi
    • 3
    Email author
  • Payal Patal
    • 1
  • Gheorghe Doros
    • 2
  • Manju L. Subramanian
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OphthalmologyBoston University School of MedicineBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Public HealthBoston UniversityBostonUSA
  3. 3.Vitreo-retinal Disease and SurgeryUniversity Health Science Center San AntonioSan AntonioUSA

Personalised recommendations