Progression of visual field loss in open angle glaucoma in the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project

Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology

Volumn 34, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 20-26

  Zahari, Mimiwati ^a   Mukesh, Bickol N ^a,c   Rait, Julian L ^a   Taylor, Hugh R ^a,b   McCarty, Catherine A ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^c MARSHFIELD CLINIC   (United States)

Author keywords

Open angle glaucoma; Progression; Visual field loss

Indexed keywords

ANTIGLAUCOMA AGENT;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; CONSENSUS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE COURSE; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OPEN ANGLE GLAUCOMA; OPTIC DISK; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; STEREOPHOTOGRAMMETRY; VISUAL FIELD DEFECT; VISUAL SYSTEM EXAMINATION;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES, OPHTHALMOLOGICAL; DISEASE PROGRESSION; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA, OPEN-ANGLE; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; VICTORIA; VISION DISORDERS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 33644925869     PISSN: 14426404     EISSN: 14429071     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2006.01142.x     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Drake MV, Hetherington DO. The visual fields: Text and atlas of clinical perimetry, chapter 13. St Louis: Mosby, 1990; 1301-10.
2. Suzuki Y, Shirato S, Adachi M, Hamada C. Risk factors for the progression of treated primary open-angle glaucoma: A multivariate life-table analysis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1999; 237: 463-7.
3. Fitzke FW, McNaught AI. The diagnosis of visual field progression in glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 1994; 5: 110-15.
4. Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA, Poinoosawmy D et al. Analysis of visual field progression in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 1996; 80: 40-8.
5. Katz J. Scoring systems for measuring progression of visual field loss in clinical trials of glaucoma treatment. Ophthalmology 1999; 106: 391-5.
6. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS). 2. Visual field test scoring and reliability. The AGIS Investigators. Ophthalmology 1994; 101: 1445-55.
7. Mahdavi KN, Brigatti L, Weitzman M, Caprioli J. Comparison of methods to detect visual field progression in glaucoma. Ophthalmology 1997; 104: 1228-36.
8. Musch DC, Lichter PR, Guire KE, Standardi CL. The Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study: Study design, methods, and baseline characteristics of enrolled patients. Ophthalmology 1999; 106: 653-62.
9. Wensor MD, McCarty CA, Stanislavsky YL et al. The prevalence of glaucoma in the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project. Ophthalmology 1998; 105: 733-9.
10. Wolfs TCW, Borger PH, Ramrattan RS et al. Changing views on open-angle glaucoma: Definitions and prevalences - the Rotterdam Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000; 41: 3309-21.
11. Cedrone C, Culasso F, Cesareo M et al. Prevalence of glaucoma in Ponza, Italy: A comparison with other studies. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 1997; 4: 59-72.
12. Mitchell P, Smith W, Attebo K, Healy PR. Prevalence of open-angle glaucoma in Australia: The Blue Mountains Eye Study. Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 1661-9.
13. Klein BEK, Klein R, Sponsel WE et al. Prevalence of glaucoma. The Beaver Dam Eye Study. Ophthalmology 1992; 99: 1499-504.
14. Mukesh BN, McCarty CA, Rait JL, Taylor HR. Five-year incidence of open angle glaucoma: The Visual Impairment Project. Ophthalmology 2002; 109: 1047-51.
15. Leske MC, Connell AMS, Wu SY et al. Incidence of open angle glaucoma: the Barbados Eye Studies. Arch Ophthalmol 2001; 119: 89-95.
16. Wilson MR, Kosoko O, Cowan CL Jr et al. Progression of visual field loss in untreated glaucoma patients and glaucoma suspects in St. Lucia, West Indies. Am J Ophthalmol 2002; 134: 399-405.
17. Leske MC, Heijl A, Hyman L et al. Factors for progression and glaucoma treatment: The Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2004; 15: 102-6.
18. Livingston PM, Carson CA, Stanislavsky YL et al. Methods for a population based study of eye disease: The Melbourne Visual Impairment Project. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 1994; 1: 139-48.
19. McCarty CA, Nanjan MB, Taylor HR. Vision impairment predicts 5 year mortality. Br J Ophthalmol 2001; 85: 322-6.
20. Blumenthal EZ, Sample PA, Zangwill L et al. Comparison of long-term variability for standard and short-wavelength automated perimetry in stable glaucoma patients. Am J Ophthalmol 2000; 129: 309-13.
21. Chen PP, Park RJ. Visual field progression in patients with initially unilaterally visual field loss from chronic open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2000; 107: 1688-92.
22. Katz J, Congdon N, Friedman DS. Methodological variations in estimating apparent progressive visual field loss in clinical trials of glaucoma treatment. Arch Ophthalmol 1999; 117: 1137-42.
23. Smith SD, Katz J, Qiugley HA. Analysis of progressive change in automated visual fields in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1996; 37: 1419-28.
24. Bonomi L. Evolution of methods for diagnosis and follow-up in glaucoma. Glaucoma - concepts in evolution. Proceedings of an international symposium held in Verona, Italy, 16 June 1991. Amsterdam and New York: Kugler Publications, 1991; 1-11.
25. Flanagan JG, Wild JM, Troope GE. Evaluation of FASTPAC, a new strategy for threshold estimation with the Humphrey field analyzer in a glaucomatous population. Ophthalmology 1993; 100: 949-54.
26. Young IM, Rait JL, Carson CA, Taylor HR. Fastpac visual field screening. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 1995; 2: 117-21.
27. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J. The effect of perimetric experience in normal subjects. Arch Ophthalmol 1989; 107: 81-6.
28. Werner EB, Krupin T, Adelson A, Feitl ME. Effect of patient experience on the results of automated perimetry in glaucoma suspect patients. Ophthalmology 1990; 97: 44-8.
29. 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.
30. Heijl A, Bengtsson B. The effect of perimetric experience in patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1996; 114: 19-22.
31. Wild JM, Dengler-Harles M, Searle AE, O'Neill EC, Crews SJ. The influence of the learning effect on automated perimetry in patients with suspected glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1989; 67: 537-45.
32. Wild JM, Searle AE, Dengler-Harles M, O'Neill EC. Long-term follow-up of baseline learning and fatigue effects in the automated perimetry of glaucoma and ocular hypertensive patients. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1991; 69: 210-16.
33. Young IM, Rait JL, Carson CA, Taylor HR. Comparison between Fastpac and conventional Humphrey perimetry. Aust NZ J Ophthalmol 1994; 22: 95-9.
34. Mills RP, Barnebey HS, Migliazzo CV, Li Y. Does saving time using FASTPAC or suprathreshold testing reduce quality of visual fields? Ophthalmology 1994; 101: 1596-603.
35. O'Brien C, Poinoosawmy D, Wu J, Hitchings R. Evaluation of the Humphrey FASTPAC threshold program in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 1994; 78: 516-19.
36. Nordmann JP, Denis P, Nguer Y, Mouton-Chopin D, Saraux H. Static threshold visual field in glaucoma with the Fastpac algorithm of the Humphrey field analyser. Is the gain in examination time offset by any loss of information? Eur J Ophthalmol 1994; 4: 105-10.