| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1From Discoveries in Sight, Devers Eye Institute, Portland, Oregon; the 2Helsinki University Eye Hospital, Helsinki, Finland; and the 3Department of Ophthalmology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
PURPOSE. To compare the performance characteristics of seven methods for analyzing glaucomatous visual field progression, using a combination of real patient data and computer simulation techniques.
METHODS. The initial and final visual field results, separated by 7 years and measured with the full-threshold 30-2 program of the Humphrey Field Analyzer (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA) of 76 patients with open-angle glaucoma were used. A computer simulation program generated 14 interim semiannual visual fields under conditions of high, moderate, and no variability. Progression was analyzed using the methods of the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS), the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study (CIGTS), three criteria based on the Glaucoma Change Probability (GCP) analysis, and two criteria based on point-wise linear regression analysis (PLRA). Specificities were calculated by using the same visual field of each patient as both the initial and final field (no progression) under conditions of moderate and high variability.
RESULTS. Under the no-variability condition, progression rates were 18% for the AGIS, 36% for CIGTS, 47% to 62% for the three GCP methods, and 72% and 84% for the two PLRA methods. Progression rates increased with greater variability with the three GCP methods and decreased with all other methods. The time to detect confirmed progression was longest for the PLRA methods and shortest for the CIGTS and GCP methods. Under the moderate-variability condition, all methods yielded high specificity. The AGIS, CIGTS, and one of the GCP and PLRA methods were relatively resistant to high variability and maintained high specificities.
CONCLUSIONS. The AGIS and CIGTS methods had high specificity, but classified fewer cases of progression than the other methods. The GCP methods determined progression earliest; however, they were generally not as specific. Methods based on PLRA were specific but times to confirmed progression were the longest.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  C. Wesselink, G. P. Heeg, and N. M. Jansonius Glaucoma Monitoring in a Clinical Setting: Glaucoma Progression Analysis vs Nonparametric Progression Analysis in the Groningen Longitudinal Glaucoma Study Arch Ophthalmol, March 1, 2009; 127(3): 270 - 274. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 V T Diaz-Aleman, A Anton, M G. de la Rosa, Z K Johnson, S McLeod, and A Azuara-Blanco Detection of visual-field deterioration by Glaucoma Progression Analysis and Threshold Noiseless Trend programs Br. J. Ophthalmol., March 1, 2009; 93(3): 322 - 328. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. C. Chauhan, F. S. Mikelberg, A. G. Balaszi, R. P. LeBlanc, M. R. Lesk, G. E. Trope, and for the Canadian Glaucoma Study Group Canadian Glaucoma Study: 2. Risk Factors for the Progression of Open-angle Glaucoma Arch Ophthalmol, August 1, 2008; 126(8): 1030 - 1036. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B C Chauhan, D F Garway-Heath, F J Goni, L Rossetti, B Bengtsson, A C Viswanathan, and A Heijl Practical recommendations for measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma Br. J. Ophthalmol., April 1, 2008; 92(4): 569 - 573. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Lee and D. M. Blumberg Understanding the Critical Importance of Diagnosis in the Measurement of Quality of Care Arch Ophthalmol, March 1, 2008; 126(3): 426 - 427. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Nouri-Mahdavi, D. Hoffman, M. Ralli, and J. Caprioli Comparison of Methods to Predict Visual Field Progression in Glaucoma Arch Ophthalmol, September 1, 2007; 125(9): 1176 - 1181. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. G. Strouthidis, A. Scott, A. C. Viswanathan, D. P. Crabb, and D. F. Garway-Heath Monitoring Glaucomatous Visual Field Progression: The Effect of a Novel Spatial Filter Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., January 1, 2007; 48(1): 251 - 257. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. G. Strouthidis, A. Scott, N. M. Peter, and D. F. Garway-Heath Optic disc and visual field progression in ocular hypertensive subjects: detection rates, specificity, and agreement. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., July 1, 2006; 47(7): 2904 - 2910. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. H. Artes, M. T. Nicolela, R. P. LeBlanc, and B. C. Chauhan Visual Field Progression in Glaucoma: Total Versus Pattern Deviation Analyses Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., December 1, 2005; 46(12): 4600 - 4606. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. A. Sample, C. Boden, Z. Zhang, J. Pascual, T.-W. Lee, L. M. Zangwill, R. N. Weinreb, J. G. Crowston, E. M. Hoffmann, F. A. Medeiros, et al. Unsupervised Machine Learning with Independent Component Analysis to Identify Areas of Progression in Glaucomatous Visual Fields Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., October 1, 2005; 46(10): 3684 - 3692. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. K.-s. Leung, K. K.-L. Chong, W.-m. Chan, C. K.-F. Yiu, M.-y. Tso, J. Woo, M.-K. Tsang, K.-k. Tse, and W.-h. Yung Comparative Study of Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Measurement by StratusOCT and GDx VCC, II: Structure/Function Regression Analysis in Glaucoma Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., October 1, 2005; 46(10): 3702 - 3711. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. L. Keltner, C. A. Johnson, R. A. Levine, J. Fan, K. E. Cello, M. A. Kass, M. O. Gordon, and for the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study Group Normal Visual Field Test Results Following Glaucomatous Visual Field End Points in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study Arch Ophthalmol, September 1, 2005; 123(9): 1201 - 1206. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. H. Artes, D. M. Hutchison, M. T. Nicolela, R. P. LeBlanc, and B. C. Chauhan Threshold and Variability Properties of Matrix Frequency-Doubling Technology and Standard Automated Perimetry in Glaucoma Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., July 1, 2005; 46(7): 2451 - 2457. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Wollstein, J. S. Schuman, L. L. Price, A. Aydin, P. C. Stark, E. Hertzmark, E. Lai, H. Ishikawa, C. Mattox, J. G. Fujimoto, et al. Optical Coherence Tomography Longitudinal Evaluation of Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness in Glaucoma Arch Ophthalmol, April 1, 2005; 123(4): 464 - 470. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. A. Haymes, D. M. Hutchison, T. A. McCormick, D. K. Varma, M. T. Nicolela, R. P. LeBlanc, and B. C. Chauhan Glaucomatous Visual Field Progression with Frequency-Doubling Technology and Standard Automated Perimetry in a Longitudinal Prospective Study Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., February 1, 2005; 46(2): 547 - 554. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Nouri-Mahdavi, J. Caprioli, A. L. Coleman, D. Hoffman, and D. Gaasterland Pointwise Linear Regression for Evaluation of Visual Field Outcomes and Comparison With the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study Methods Arch Ophthalmol, February 1, 2005; 123(2): 193 - 199. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
