Pointwise linear regression analysis for detection of visual field progression with absolute versus corrected threshold sensitivities

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 47, Issue 7, 2006, Pages 2896-2903

  Manassakorn, Anita ^a   Nouri Mahdavi, Kouros ^a   Koucheki, Behrooz ^a   Law, Simon K ^a   Caprioli, Joseph ^a  

^a JULES STEIN EYE INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; PATTERN DEVIATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; TOTAL DEVIATION; VISUAL FIELD; DISEASE COURSE; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MIDDLE AGED; PERCEPTIVE THRESHOLD; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL MODEL; VISUAL DISORDER;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; DISEASE PROGRESSION; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; LINEAR MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SENSORY THRESHOLDS; VISION DISORDERS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 33746767107     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.05-1079     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Giangiacomo A, Garway-Heath D, Caprioli J. Diagnosing glaucoma progression: current practice and promising technologies. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2006;17:153-162.
2. Bartz-Schmidt KU, Thumann G, Jonescu-Cuypers CP, Krieglstein GK. Quantitative morphologic and functional evaluation of the optic nerve head in chronic open-angle glaucoma. Surv Ophthalmol. 1999;44(suppl 1):S41-S53.
3. Chauhan BC, McCormick TA, Nicolela MT, LeBlanc RP. Optic disc and visual field changes in a prospective longitudinal study of patients with glaucoma: comparison of scanning laser tomography with conventional perimetry and optic disc photography. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001;119:1492-1499.
4. 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.
5. Girkin CA. Relationship between structure of optic nerve/nerve fiber layer and functional measurements in glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2004;15:96-101.
6. Spry PG, Johnson CA. Identification of progressive glaucomatous visual field loss. Surv Ophthalmol. 2002;47:158-173.
7. Baez KA, McNaught AI, Dowler JG, et al. Motion detection threshold and field progression in normal tension glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 1995;79:125-128.
8. Bhandari A, Crabb DP, Poinoosawmy D, et al. Effect of surgery on visual field progression in normal-tension glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1997;104:1131-1137.
9. Crabb DP, Fitzke FW, McNaught AI, et al. Improving the prediction of visual field progression in glaucoma using spatial processing. Ophthalmology. 1997;104:517-524.
10. Jonas JB, Martus P, Horn FK, et al. Predictive factors of the optic nerve head for development or progression of glaucomatous visual field loss. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45:2613-2618.
11. Aung T, Oen FT, Wong HT, et al. Randomised controlled trial comparing the effect of brimonidine and timolol on visual field loss after acute primary angle closure. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004;88:88-94.
12. Anderson D. Automated Static Perimetry. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby-Year Book; 1999.
13. Drance SM. The early field defects in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol. 1969;8:84-91.
14. Armaly MF. Visual field defects in early open angle glaucoma. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1971;69:147-162.
15. Hart WM Jr, Becker B. The onset and evolution of glaucomatous visual field defects. Ophthalmology. 1982;89:268-279.
16. Åsman P, Wild JM, Heijl A. Appearance of the pattern deviation map as a function of change in area of localized field loss. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45:3099-3106.
17. Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, et al. Measuring visual field progression in the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2003;81:286-293.
18. Katz J. A comparison of the pattern- and total deviation-based Glaucoma Change Probability programs. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:1012-1016.
19. AGIS. Study design and methods and baseline characteristics of study patients. Control Clin Trials. 1994;15:299-325.
20. Gardiner SK, Crabb DP. Examination of different point-wise linear regression methods for determining visual field progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:1400-1407.
21. Nouri-Mahdavi K, Caprioli J, Coleman AL, et al. Point-wise linear regression for evaluation of visual field outcomes and comparison with the advanced glaucoma intervention study methods. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123:193-9.
22. Petrie A. Medical Statistics at a Glance. Vol. 138. Malden, MA: Blackwell Science Ltd.; 2003.
23. Lee AC, Sample PA, Blumenthal EZ, et al. Infrequent confirmation of visual field progression. Ophthalmology. 2002;109:1059-1065.
24. Leske MC, Heijl A, Hyman L, Bengtsson B. Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial: design and baseline data. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:2144-2153.
25. Boden C, Sample PA, Boehm AG, et al. The structure-function relationship in eyes with glaucomatous visual field loss that crosses the horizontal meridian. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:907-912.
26. Henson DB, Artes PH, Chauhan BC. Diffuse loss of sensitivity in early glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40:3147-3151.
27. 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;106:619-623.
28. Viswanathan AC, Crabb DP, McNaught AI, et al. Interobserver agreement on visual field progression in glaucoma: a comparison of methods. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87:726-730.
29. 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;31:512-520.
30. Boeglin RJ, Caprioli J, Zulauf M. Long-term fluctuation of the visual field in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 1992;113:396-400.
31. McNaught AI, Crabb DP, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA. Visual field progression: comparison of Humphrey Statpac2 and point-wise linear regression analysis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1996;234:411-418.
32. Smith SD, Katz J, Quigley HA. Analysis of progressive change in automated visual fields in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1996;37:1419-1428.
33. Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA, Poinoosawmy D, et al. Analysis of visual field progression in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 1996;80:40-48.
34. Nouri-Mahdavi K, Brigatti L, Weitzman M, Caprioli J. Comparison of methods to detect visual field progression in glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1997;104:1228-1236.
35. Katz J, Gilbert D, Quigley HA, Sommer A. Estimating progression of visual field loss in glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1997;104:1017-1025.
36. Wild JM, Hutchings N, Hussey MK, et al. Pointwise univariate linear regression of perimetric sensitivity against follow-up time in glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1997;104:808-815.
37. Spry PG, Bates AB, Johnson CA, Chauhan BC. Simulation of longitudinal threshold visual field data. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:2192-2200.
38. 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;60:267-274.