Interobserver agreement on visual field progression in glaucoma: A comparison of methods

British Journal of Ophthalmology

Volumn 87, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 726-730

  Viswanathan, A C ^a   Crabb, D P ^b   McNaught, A I ^c   Westcott, M C ^d   Kamal, D ^d   Garway Heath, D F ^d   Fitzke, Fred W ^a,b   Hitchings, R A ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b NOTTINGHAM TRENT UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c Gloucestershire Eye Unit   (United Kingdom)

^d MOORFIELDS EYE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL EXAMINATION; DISEASE COURSE; EVALUATION; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; OBSERVER VARIATION; PHYSICIAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANK SUM TEST; RETINA MACULA LUTEA; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; VISUAL FIELD;

ADULT; AGED; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PERIMETRY; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 0037680366     PISSN: 00071161     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bjo.87.6.726     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Werner EB, Bishop KI, Koelle J, et al. A comparison of experienced clinical observers and statistical tests in detection of progressive visual field loss in glaucoma using automated perimetry. Arch Ophthalmol 1988;106:619-23.
2. Musch DC, Lichter PR, Guire KE, et al. The Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study: study design, methods, and baseline characteristics of enrolled patients. Ophthalmology 1999;106:653-62.
3. Leske MC, Heijl A, Hyman L, et al. Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial: design and baseline data. Ophthalmology 1999;106:2144-53.
4. AGIS. The advanced glaucoma intervention study (AGIS): 7. The relationship between control of intraocular pressure and visual field deterioration.The AGIS Investigators. Am J Ophthalmol 2000;130:429-40.
5. Collaborative Normal-Tension Glaucoma Study Group. Comparison of glaucomatous progression between untreated patients with normal-tension glaucoma and patients with therapeutically reduced intraocular pressures [see comments]. Am J Ophthalmol 1998;126:487-97.
6. Flammer J. The concept of visual field indices. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1986;224:389-92
7. Boeglin RJ, Caprioli J, Zulauf M. Long-term fluctuation of the visual field in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 1992;113:396-400.
8. Flammer J, Drance SM, Zulauf M. Differential light threshold. Short- and long-term fluctuation in patients with glaucoma, normal controls, and patients with suspected glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1984;102:704-6.
9. Weber J, Koll W, Krieglstein GK. Intraocular pressure and visual field decay in chronic glaucoma. Ger J Ophthalmol 1993;2:165-9.
10. Smith SD, Katz J, Quigley HA. Analysis of progressive change in automated visual fields in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1996;37:1419-28.
11. Wegner A, Ugi I, Hofman A. A long-term visual field evaluation of glaucoma patients treated topically with timolol or carteolol. In: Mills-RP, ed. Perimetry update 1992/1993. Amsterdam: Kugler and Ghedini, 1993:143-5.
12. Holmin C, Krakau CE. Regression analysis of the central visual field in chronic glaucoma cases. A follow-up study using automatic perimetry. Acta Ophthalmol Copenh 1982;60:267-74.
13. Wu D, Schwartz B, Nagin P. Trend analyses of automated visual fields. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser 1987:175-89.
14. O'Brien C, Schwartz B, Takamoto T, et al. Intraocular pressure and the rate of visual field loss in chronic open-angle glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 1991;111:491-500.
15. Chauhan BC, Drance SM, Douglas GR. The use of visual field indices in detecting changes in the visual field in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1990;31:512-20.
16. Birch MK, Wishart PK, O'Donnell N. Determining progressive field loss. In: Mills RP, Wall M, eds. Perimetry update 1994/1995. Amsterdam: Kugler and Ghedini, 1995:31-6.
17. Wild JM, Hussey MK, Flanagan JG, et al. Pointwise topographical and longitudinal modeling of the visual field in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1993;34:1907-16.
18. Hoskins HD, Jensvold N, Zaretsky M, et al. Rate of progression of discrete areas of the visual field. In: Heijl A, ed. Perimetry update 1988/1989. Amsterdam: Kugler and Ghedini, 1989:173-6.
19. O'Brien C, Schwartz B. The visual field in chronic open angle glaucoma: the rate of change in different regions of the field. Eye 1990;4(Pt 4):557-62.
20. Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA, Poinoosawmy D, et al. Analysis of visual field progression in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 1996;80:40-8.
21. Noureddin BN, Poinoosawmy D, Fitzke FW, et al. Regression analysis of visual field progression in low tension glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 1991;75:493-5.
22. Poinoosawmy D, Wu J, Fitzke FW, et al. Discrimination between progression and non-progression visual field loss in low tension glaucoma using MDT. In: Mills-RP, ed. Perimetry update 1992/1993. Amsterdam: Kugler and Ghedini, 1993:109-14.
23. McNaught AI, Crabb DP, Fitzke FW, et al. Modelling series of visual fields to detect progression in normal tension glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1995;233:750-755.
24. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Lindgren A, et al. Extended empirical statistical package for evaluation of single and multiple fields in glaucoma: Statpac 2. In: Mills RP, Heijl A, eds. Perimetry update 1990/1991. Amsterdom: Kugler and Ghedini, 1991:303-15.
25. Viswanathan AC, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA. Early detection of visual field progression in glaucoma: a comparison of PROGRESSOR and STATPAC 2. Br J Ophthalmol 1997;81:1037-42.
26. Nouri-Mahdavi K, Brigatti L, Weitzman M, et al. Comparison of methods to detect visual field progression in glaucoma [published erratum appears in Ophthalmology 1998;105:7]. Ophthalmology 1997;104:1228-36.
27. Werner EB, Adelson A, Krupin T. Effect of patient experience on the results of automated perimetry in clinically stable glaucoma patients. Ophthalmology 1988;95:764-7.
28. Fitzke FW, Crabb DP, McNaught AI, et al. Image processing of computerised visual field data.: Br J Ophthalmol 1995;79:207-12.
29. Viswanathan AC, Hitchings RA, Fitzke FW. Spatial filtering of glaucomatous visual fields using PROGRESSOR for Windows. In: Wall M, Heijl A, eds. Perimetry update. Amsterdam/New York: Kugler Publications, 1996-7:311-19.
30. Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: John Wiley, 1981:212-25.
31. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-74.
32. Chauhan BC, Drance SM, LeBlanc RP, et al. Technique for determining glaucomatous visual field progression by using animation graphics. Am J Ophthalmol 1994;118:485-91.
33. Viswanathan AC, Hitchings RA, Fitzke FW. How often do patients need visual field tests? Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1997;235:563-8.
34. Collaborative Normal-Tension Glaucoma Study Group. The effectiveness of intraocular pressure reduction in the treatment of normal-tension glaucoma [see comments]. Am J Ophthalmol 1998;126:498-505.
35. Spry PGD, Johnson CM, Bates AB, et al. Discriminatory power of pointwise linear regression for detection of glaucomatous visual field defect progression. In: Wall M, Mills RP, eds. Perimetry update. The Hague, Netherlands: Kugler, 2000-1:363-9.