Prior to both qualitative and quantitative analysis, OCT-A images must be carefully reviewed as motion artifacts and segmentation errors in current OCT-A technology are frequent particularly in pathologically altered maculae.

Purpose To compare optical coherence tomography angiography (OCT-A) image quality gradings performed by readers of varying retinal expertise levels in different retinal diseases. Methods Central 3 × 3 mm 2 OCT-A images (AngioVue, Optovue) of 57 healthy controls (50.9 ± 22.4 years) and 148 patients (66.5 ± 14.1 years) affected by various chorioretinal diseases were retrospectively analyzed including early age-related macular degeneration (AMD, n = 26), neovascular AMD (nAMD, n = 22), and geographic atrophy due to AMD (GA, n = 6), glaucoma (n = 28), central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC, n = 14), epiretinal membrane (EM, n = 26), retinitis pigmentosa (RP, n = 16), and retinal venous occlusion (RVO, n = 10). A senior expert in medical retina (SE), an ophthalmology resident (OR), and a non-ophthalmologic medical doctor (MD) independently assessed OCT-A image quality using the motion artifact score (MAS) and the segmentation accuracy score (SAS). Results Regarding MAS, inter-reader agreement between SE and OR was 93.7% (Cohen's kappa = 0.907) and 85.4% (Cohen's kappa = 0.786) between SE and MD. Regarding SAS, inter-reader agreement between SE and OR was 95.1% (Cohen's kappa = 0.92) and 92.2% (Cohen's kappa = 0.874) between SE and MD. In the SAS analysis, signal strength index (SSI) and presence of retinal pathology had a significant influence on the overall agreement ( P = 0.046; P < 0.001). Conclusions OCT-A image quality assessment can be performed most reliably by an ophthalmologist with knowledge in retinal image analysis. Yet, well-instructed non-ophthalmologic assessors show only slightly inferior results and, thus, may be integrated in routine OCT-A image quality assessment as well.