TY - JOUR
T1 - The ISNT Rule
T2 - How Often Does It Apply to Disc Photographs and Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Measurements in the Normal Population?
AU - Poon, Linda Yi Chieh
AU - Solá-Del Valle, David
AU - Turalba, Angela V.
AU - Falkenstein, Iryna A.
AU - Horsley, Michael
AU - Kim, Julie H.
AU - Song, Brian J.
AU - Takusagawa, Hana L.
AU - Wang, Kaidi
AU - Chen, Teresa C.
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding/Support: Teresa C. Chen has received funding from the American Glaucoma Society Mid-Career Award (San Francisco, California), Massachusetts Lions Eye Research Fund, Fidelity Charitable Fund (Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts), and Harvard Catalyst Grant, National Institutes of Health UL RR025758 (Bethesda, Maryland). Financial Disclosures: The following authors have no financial disclosures: Linda Yi-Chieh Poon, David Solá-Del Valle, Angela V. Turalba, Iryna A. Falkenstein, Michael Horsley, Julie H. Kim, Brian J. Song, Hana L. Takusagawa, and Kaidi Wang. All authors attest that they meet the current ICMJE criteria for authorship.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2017/12
Y1 - 2017/12
N2 - Purpose To determine what percentage of normal eyes follow the ISNT rule, and whether ISNT rule variants may be more generalizable to the normal population. Design Cross-sectional study. Methods SETTING: Institutional setting. STUDY POPULATION: Total of 110 normal subjects. OBSERVATION PROCEDURES: Neuroretinal rim assessments from disc photographs and retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness measurements from spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The percentages of subjects that obeyed the ISNT rule and its variants. Results The ISNT rule is only valid for 37.0% of disc photograph rim assessments and 43.8% of RNFL measurements. Deviation of the nasal sector from the expected ISNT pattern was a major cause for the ISNT rule not being obeyed for both rim and RNFL assessments. Specifically, 10.9% of subjects had wider nasal rims than the inferior rims, 29.4% had wider nasal rims than the superior rims, 14.7% had narrower nasal rims than the temporal rims, and 42.9% had thinner nasal RNFLs compared to the temporal quadrant. Exclusion of the nasal quadrant from the ISNT rule significantly increased the validity of ISNT variant rules, with 70.9% and 76.4% of disc photographs following the IST rule and the IS rule, respectively. Similarly, for RNFL thickness, 70.9% and 71.8% of patients followed the IST and IS rule, respectively. Conclusions The ISNT rule is only valid for about a third of disc photographs and less than half of RNFL measurements in normal patients. ISNT rule variants, such as the IST and IS rule, may be considered, as they are valid in more than 70% of patients.
AB - Purpose To determine what percentage of normal eyes follow the ISNT rule, and whether ISNT rule variants may be more generalizable to the normal population. Design Cross-sectional study. Methods SETTING: Institutional setting. STUDY POPULATION: Total of 110 normal subjects. OBSERVATION PROCEDURES: Neuroretinal rim assessments from disc photographs and retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness measurements from spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The percentages of subjects that obeyed the ISNT rule and its variants. Results The ISNT rule is only valid for 37.0% of disc photograph rim assessments and 43.8% of RNFL measurements. Deviation of the nasal sector from the expected ISNT pattern was a major cause for the ISNT rule not being obeyed for both rim and RNFL assessments. Specifically, 10.9% of subjects had wider nasal rims than the inferior rims, 29.4% had wider nasal rims than the superior rims, 14.7% had narrower nasal rims than the temporal rims, and 42.9% had thinner nasal RNFLs compared to the temporal quadrant. Exclusion of the nasal quadrant from the ISNT rule significantly increased the validity of ISNT variant rules, with 70.9% and 76.4% of disc photographs following the IST rule and the IS rule, respectively. Similarly, for RNFL thickness, 70.9% and 71.8% of patients followed the IST and IS rule, respectively. Conclusions The ISNT rule is only valid for about a third of disc photographs and less than half of RNFL measurements in normal patients. ISNT rule variants, such as the IST and IS rule, may be considered, as they are valid in more than 70% of patients.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85031754622&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85031754622&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ajo.2017.09.018
DO - 10.1016/j.ajo.2017.09.018
M3 - Article
C2 - 28947074
AN - SCOPUS:85031754622
SN - 0002-9394
VL - 184
SP - 19
EP - 27
JO - American Journal of Ophthalmology
JF - American Journal of Ophthalmology
ER -