[optimal] Re: From Denice SF
- From: "Eric Kegley" <ekegley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <optimal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:31:34 -0600
Denice,
I have personally been involved in about 60 clinical trials over the last 9-10 years. Naturally we have only been using SD-OCT in trials for about the last 2-3 years. We have never had a protocol that requires 100 ART except one and that was for RNFL. Whenever got our Spectralis (in 2008 I think), we did a very non-scientific evaluation of the best combination of ART versus "face time". We found that we got good detail with 9 ART. It just so happens that when we did our first Spectralis study with Duke, they chose 9 ART for the 49 line volume scan- I know this isn't a direct correlation with the radial lines you are doing but could help justify the use of fewer ART for you. I think we have one current trial that uses 6 line radial scans and I believe we are using 16 ART. (which IMHO is plenty).
EK
Eric Kegley, CRA, COA
Retina Consultants of Houston
6560 Fannin St., #750
Houston, TX 77030
Sent from my Palm Touchpad
On Feb 16, 2012 6:08 PM, CPMC Ophthalmic Diagnostic Center <cpmceyelab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Fellow Optimalers
I have spoken with the study coordinators again today because my poor patient could not hold his fixation for the 100 ART per 6 spoke Radial scans.
They are asking me for collaboration that I am not crazy, that this protocol is excessive. If you have an opinion, please weigh in. I will forward, as requested, the consensus.
Denice
Denice Barsness, CRA, COMT, ROUB, CDOS, FOPS
Ophthalmic Diagnostic Center
CPMC Department of Ophthalmology
2100 Webster Street Suite 212
San Francisco CA 94115
(415) 600-3937 FAX (415) 600-6563
-----Original Message-----
From: optimal-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:optimal-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carlton, Chris [VA]
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 7:26 AM
To: 'optimal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [optimal] Re: From Denice SF
Is this not a safety issue? The timeout is for a reason. I believe there are guidelines on how much exposure from a laser on a single area of the retina.
100 ART is ridiculous. These people apparently no little about the Spectralis. I rarely let ART build too high as you get diminishing returns. Many times the images build too much filling in pathology and blurring artifacts in the vitreous.
Many of the study protocols are becoming ridiculous.
There seems to be a need for central certification process that serves all reading centers.
Chris Carlton
Photographer
VCH/UBC Eye Care Center
________________________________
From: optimal-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:optimal-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Eric Kegley
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 4:41 PM
To: optimal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [optimal] Re: From Denice SF
Denice,
You could always create a new patient with dummy information, scan the subject, then bring up the real record and change the data to the correct data. That is unless he already has a study record and you must down "followup" scans.
EK
Eric Kegley, CRA, COA
Director of Ophthalmic Imaging
Retina Consultants of Houston
6560 Fannin St., #750
Houston, TX 77030
Sent from my Palm Pre3 on AT&T
________________________________
On Feb 9, 2012 6:23 PM, Cunningham, Denise (NIH/NEI) [E] <CunninghamD@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Please SHARE your answer! We encounter the same problems and need a solution.
From: CPMC Ophthalmic Diagnostic Center [mailto:cpmceyelab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 07:18 PM
To: optimal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <optimal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [optimal] From Denice SF
Got my answer! Gotta love Optimal.
Denice Barsness, CRA, COMT, ROUB, CDOS, FOPS
Ophthalmic Diagnostic Center
CPMC Department of Ophthalmology
2100 Webster Street Suite 212
San Francisco CA 94115
(415) 600-3937 FAX (415) 600-6563
Other related posts:
