Communicating research findings goes more smoothly when all of your colleagues are on the same page, especially when it comes to new technology. A recent study surveyed members of the International Uveitis Study Group on their preferred terminology when reporting on OCT-angiography (OCT-A) findings in uveitis, and the disparities were surprising.

The researchers compared the individual responses of experts, defined as those with several publications on OCT-A, with uveitis specialists (users) who have fewer than five publications on the field of uveitis and OCT-A. A total of 108 uveitis specialists participated and were included in the study. Of these, 23 were considered experts.

Both groups agreed on the definitions of widefield OCT-A and neovascularization in uveitis, but they differed in other areas, such as quantification of ischemia, definitions of “large” areas of ischemia and on terms used to describe decreased OCT-A signal from different causes. The researchers identified a “unanimous need” for both groups to distinguish the size of a decreased OCT-A signal in uveitis and agreed-upon terms to describe the different causes for a decrease. The researchers noted no singular quantitative measurement of decreased flow, specifically for widefield OCT-A.

The team concluded that though there’s broad agreement in terminology used by uveitis specialists, there were significant differences in terminology between users and experts. This indicates a need for standardized nomenclature among all uveitis specialists for reporting and clinical use.