A statistical approach to the evaluation of covariate effects on the receiver operating characteristic curves of diagnostic tests in glaucoma

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 47, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 2520-2527

  Medeiros, Felipe A ^a   Sample, Pamela A ^a   Zangwill, Linda M ^a   Liebmann, Jeffrey M ^b   Girkin, Christopher A ^c   Weinreb, Robert N ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b NEW YORK EYE AND EAR INFIRMARY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COVARIANCE; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; DISEASE SEVERITY; EVALUATION; EYE; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; METHODOLOGY; OPTIC NERVE DISEASE; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RETINA; SCANNING LASER OPHTHALMOSCOPY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TECHNOLOGY; VISION; AGE; AGED; ALGORITHM; CASE CONTROL STUDY; CLINICAL TRIAL; HOSPITALIZATION; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; OPHTHALMOSCOPY; ROC CURVE; STATISTICS;

AGE FACTORS; AGED; ALGORITHMS; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MIDDLE AGED; OPHTHALMOSCOPY; PERIMETRY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; ROC CURVE; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX;

EID: 33745646593     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.05-1441     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology. 1982;143:29-36.
2. Shapiro DE. The interpretation of diagnostic tests. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8:113-134.
3. Lachs MS, Nachamkin I, Edelstein PH, Goldman J, Feinstein AR, Schwartz JS. Spectrum bias in the evaluation of diagnostic tests: lessons from the rapid dipstick test for urinary tract infection. Ann Intern Med. 1992;117:135-140.
4. Moons KG, van Es GA, Deckers JW, Habbema JD, Grobbee DE. Limitations of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio, and Bayes' theorem in assessing diagnostic probabilities: a clinical example. Epidemiology. 1997;8:12-17.
5. Pepe MS. A regression modelling framework for receiver operating characteristic curves in medical diagnostic testing. Biometrika. 1997;84:595-608.
6. Pepe MS. Three approaches to regression analysis of receiver operating characteristic curves for continuous test results. Biometrics. 1998;54:124-135.
7. Maddess T, Henry G. Performance of nonlinear visual units in ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Clin Vis Sci. 1992;7:371-383.
8. Landers JA, Goldberg I, Graham SL. Detection of early visual field loss in glaucoma using frequency-doubling perimetry and short-wavelength automated perimetry. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121:1705-1710.
9. Medeiros FA, Sample PA, Weinreb RN. Corneal thickness measurements and frequency doubling technology perimetry abnormalities in ocular hypertensive eyes. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:1903-1908.
10. Medeiros FA, Sample PA, Weinreb RN. Frequency doubling technology perimetry abnormalities as predictors of glaucomatous visual field loss. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;137:863-871.
11. Anderson AJ, Johnson CA. Frequency-doubling technology perimetry. Ophthalmol Clin North Am. 2003;16:213-225.
12. Anderson AJ, Johnson CA, Fingeret M, et al. Characteristics of the normative database for the Humphrey matrix perimeter. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:1540-1548.
13. Johnson CA, Cioffi GA, Van Buskirk EM. Frequency doubling technology perimetry using a 24-2 stimulus presentation pattern. Optom Vis Sci. 1999;76:571-581.
14. Spry PG, Johnson CA. Within-test variability of frequency-doubling perimetry using a 24-2 test pattern. J Glaucoma. 2002;11:315-320.
15. Johnson CA, Sample PA, Zangwill LM, et al. Structure and function evaluation (SAFE): II. Comparison of optic disk and visual field characteristics. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;135:148-154.
16. Yucel YH, Gupta N, Kalichman MW, et al. Relationship of optic disc topography to optic nerve fiber number in glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1998;116:493-497.
17. Anderson DR, Patella VM. Automated Static Perimetry. St. Louis: Mosby; 1999.
18. Turpin A, McKendrick AM, Johnson CA, Vingrys AJ. Performance of efficient test procedures for frequency-doubling technology perimetry in normal and glaucomatous eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:709-715.
19. Turpin A, McKendrick AM, Johnson CA, Vingrys AJ. Development of efficient threshold strategies for frequency doubling technology perimetry using computer simulation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:322-331.
20. Soliman MA, de Jong LA, Ismaeil AA, van den Berg TJ, de Smet MD. Standard achromatic perimetry, short wavelength automated perimetry, and frequency doubling technology for detection of glaucoma damage. Ophthalmology. 2002;109:444-454.
21. Bowd C, Zangwill LM, Berry CC, et al. Detecting early glaucoma by assessment of retinal nerve fiber layer thickness and visual function. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42:1993-2003.
22. Girkin CA. Principles of confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy for the clinician. In: Fingeret M, Flanagan JG, Liebmann JM, eds. The Essential HRT Primer. Heidelberg, Germany: Heidelberg Engineering; 2005:1-9.
23. Weinreb RN. Laser scanning tomography to diagnose and monitor glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 1993;4:3-6.
24. Medeiros FA, Zangwill LM, Bowd C, Weinreb RN. Comparison of the GDx VCC scanning laser polarimeter, HRT II confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope, and stratus OCT optical coherence tomograph for the detection of glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122:827-837.
25. Wollstein G, Garway-Heath DF, Hitchings RA. Identification of early glaucoma cases with the scanning laser ophthalmoscope. Ophthalmology. 1998;105:1557-1563.
26. Pepe MS, ed. Covariate effects on continuous and ordinal tests. In: The Statistical Evaluation of Medical Tests for Classification and Prediction. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003:130-167.
27. Alonzo TA, Pepe MS. Distribution-free ROC analysis using binary regression techniques. Biostatistics. 2002;3:421-432.
28. Pepe MS. An interpretation for the ROC curve and inference using GLM procedures. Biometrics. 2000;56:352-359.
29. Zhou X-H, Obuchowski NA, McClish DK. Analysis of correlated ROC data. In: Zhou X-H, Obuchowski NA, McClish DK, eds. Statistical Methods in Diagnostic Medicine. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2002:274-306.
30. Glynn RJ, Rosner B. Accounting for the correlation between fellow eyes in regression analysis. Arch Ophthalmol. 1992;110:381-387.
31. Johnson CA. Selective versus non-selective losses in glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 1994;3:32-44.
32. Kerrigan-Baumrind LA, Quigley HA, Pease ME, Kerrigan DF, Mitchell RS. Number of ganglion cells in glaucomatous eyes compared with threshold visual field tests in the same persons. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:741-748.
33. Artes PH, Hutchison DM, Nicolela MT, LeBlanc RP, Chauhan BC. Threshold and variability properties of matrix frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:2451-2457.
34. Leisenring W, Pepe MS, Longton G. A marginal regression modelling framework for evaluating medical diagnostic tests. Stat Med. 1997;16:1263-1281.
35. Stroux A, Korth M, Junemann A, et al. A statistical model for the evaluation of sensory tests in glaucoma, depending on optic disc damage. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:2879-2884.
36. Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Brandt JD, et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:714-620; discussion 829-830.
37. Medeiros FA, Weinreb RN, Sample PA, et al. Validation of a predictive model to estimate the risk of conversion from ocular hypertension to glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123:1351-1360.
38. Henson DB, Artes PH, Chauhan BC. Diffuse loss of sensitivity in early glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40:3147-3151.
39. Artes PH, Nicolela MT, Leblanc RP, Chauhan BC. Visual field progression in glaucoma: total versus pattern deviation analyses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:4600-4606.
40. Blumenthal EZ, Sapir-Pichhadze R. Misleading statistical calculations in far-advanced glaucomatous visual field loss. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:196-200.
41. Medeiros FA, Zangwill LM, Bowd C, Sample PA, Weinreb RN. Use of progressive glaucomatous optic disk change as the reference standard for evaluation of diagnostic tests in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;139:1010-1018.