IOVS Human Reproduction
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

(Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2007;48:251-257.)
© 2007 by The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.
DOI:  10.1167/iovs.06-0576
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Strouthidis, N. G.
Right arrow Articles by Garway-Heath, D. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Strouthidis, N. G.
Right arrow Articles by Garway-Heath, D. F.

Monitoring Glaucomatous Visual Field Progression: The Effect of a Novel Spatial Filter

Nicholas G. Strouthidis,1 Andrew Scott,1 Ananth C. Viswanathan,1 David P. Crabb,2 and David F. Garway-Heath1

1From the Glaucoma Research Unit, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom; and the 2Department of Optometry and Visual Science, City University, London, United Kingdom.

PURPOSE. To assess the impact of a novel visual field spatial filtering technique on the detection of glaucomatous progression.

METHODS. One hundred ninety-eight ocular hypertensive (OHT) and 21 control subjects were examined prospectively (1994–2001) with regular full-threshold Humphrey visual field (VF) testing. VF progression was assessed by point-wise linear regression (PLR) of sensitivity/time in Progressor for Windows software modified to include a novel spatial filter. Standard progression criteria (slope > –1 dB/year, P < 0.01) were applied to both "raw" (unfiltered) and "filtered" VF series. Three-omitting confirmatory VF criteria were also applied to unfiltered VF series. Specificity was estimated as the proportion of progressing control subjects and as the proportion of significantly improving subjects (both OHT and control) at the end of the study period.

RESULTS. Applying standard PLR, specificity was estimated at 91.8% to 97.5% using unfiltered standard PLR, compared with 93.5% to 98.4% using filtered standard PLR and 95.4% to 99.3% using unfiltered three-omitting PLR. The rate of identified VF progression in the OHT cohort was 32.3% with unfiltered standard PLR, 28.7% with filtered standard PLR, and 18.6% with unfiltered three-omitting PLR. There was no significant difference in time to detected progression between filtered and unfiltered standard PLR.

CONCLUSIONS. The use of confirmatory tests resulted in improved specificity using unfiltered data; however, application of the spatial filter resulted in similar specificity but with a higher rate of detected progression. This filter may therefore be useful in the monitoring of glaucomatous progression as it may reduce the dependence on confirmatory testing, although it has yet to be applied to longitudinal SITA data.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2007 by the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology