Fig 1.
For each artifact OCTA enface and B-Scans are shown. Red arrows indicate the artifacts, red lines indicate the corresponding B-scan. (A) segmentation artifact retina avascular layer. (B) out of window artifact retina layer depth encoded. (C) motion artifact retina layer.
Table 1.
Overview of artifacts including their cause and definition.
Table 2.
Absolute frequency and central thickness of macular edema by diagnosis.
Fig 2.
Different types of identified artifacts and their relative frequencies per entire OCTA scan.
Fig 3.
Frequencies of various artifacts in different segmentations of the OCTA scans.
Overall, the interpretability of the OCTA images was graded sufficient in 25% of assessments (19/75, 95% confidence interval (CI): 16%-37%) and excellent in 65% (49/75, 95% CI: 53%-76%), adding up to 91% of OCTA assessments deemed of an acceptable quality allowing for clinical interpretation (68/75, 95% CI: 82%-96%). Also, the presence of macular edema was associated with poorer interpretability: While 85.7% of OCTA images of eyes without ME were excellently interpretable, 76.9% of OCTA imaging results with a ME < 400 μm and 33.3% with a ME > 400 μm (p<0.01; Fisher`s exact test) were deemed of sufficient quality for clinical interpretability.