Monitoring glaucomatous visual field progression: The effect of a novel spatial filter

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 48, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 251-257

  Strouthidis, Nicholas G ^a   Scott, Andrew ^a   Viswanathan, Ananth C ^a   Crabb, David P ^b   Garway Heath, David F ^a  

^a MOORFIELDS EYE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b CITY UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE COURSE; DISEASE SEVERITY; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; INTRAOCULAR HYPERTENSION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PATIENT MONITORING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL FIELD DEFECT; MIDDLE AGED; OPEN ANGLE GLAUCOMA; PERIMETRY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICS; VISUAL DISORDER;

ADULT; AGED; DISEASE PROGRESSION; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA, OPEN-ANGLE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OCULAR HYPERTENSION; PERIMETRY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VISION DISORDERS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 33846900255     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.06-0576     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Gupta N, Weinreb RN. New definitions of glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 1997;8:38-41.
2. Tan JC, Garway-Heath DF, Hitchings RA. Variability across the optic nerve head in scanning laser tomography. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87:557-559.
3. Strouthidis NG, White ET, Ho TA, Hammond CJ, Garway-Heath DF. Factors affecting the test-retest variability of the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph and Heidelberg Retina Tomograph-II. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89:1427-1432.
4. Henson DB, Chaudry S, Artes PH, Faragher EB, Ansons A. Response variability in the visual field: comparison of optic neuritis, glaucoma, ocular hypertension, and normal eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 200;41:417-421.
5. Bebie H, Fankhauser F, Spahr J. Static perimetry: accuracy and fluctuations. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1976;54:339-348.
6. 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: 537-545.
7. Hudson C, Wild JM, O'Neill EC. Fatigue effects during a single session of automated static threshold perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1994;35:268-280.
8. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J. Normal variability of static perimetric threshold values across the central visual field. Arch Ophthalmol. 1987;105:1544-1549.
9. Chauhan BC, Tompkins JD, LeBlanc RP, McCormick TA. Characteristics of frequency-of-seeing curves in normal subjects, patients with suspected glaucoma, and patients with glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1993;34:3534-3540.
10. Fitzke FW, Crabb DP, McNaught AI, Edgar DF, Hitchings RA. Image processing of computerised visual field data. Br J Ophthalmol. 1995;79:207-212.
11. Crabb DP, Fitzke FW, McNaught AI, Edgar DF, Hitchings RA. Improving the prediction of visual field progression in glaucoma using spatial processing. Ophthalmology. 1997;104:517-524.
12. Spry PG, Johnson CA, Bates AB, Turpin A, Chauhan BC. Spatial and temporal processing of threshold data for detection of progressive glaucomatous visual field loss. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:173-180.
13. Gardiner SK, Crabb DP, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA. Reducing noise in suspected glaucomatous visual fields by using a new spatial filter. Vision Res. 2004;44:839-848.
14. Artes PH, Chauhan BC. Longitudinal changes in the visual field and optic disc in glaucoma. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2005;24:333-354.
15. Strouthidis NG, Scott A, Peter NM, Garway-Heath DF. Optic disc and visual field progression in ocular hypertensive subjects: detection rates, specificity, and agreement. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:2904-2910.
16. Wollstein G, Schuman JS, Price LL, et al. Optical coherence tomography longitudinal evaluation of retinal nerve fiber layer thickness in glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123:464-470.
17. Kamal D, Garway-Heath D, Ruben S, et al. Results of the betaxolol versus placebo treatment trial in ocular hypertension. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2003;241:196-203.
18. Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study. 2. Visual field test scoring and reliability. Ophthalmology. 1994;101:1445-1455.
19. Kamal DS, Viswanathan AC, Garway-Heath DF, Hitchings RA, Poinoosawmy D, Bunce C. Detection of optic disc change with the Heidelberg retina tomograph before confirmed visual field change in ocular hypertensives converting to early glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 1999;83:290-294.
20. McNaught AI, Crabb DP, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA. Visual field progression: comparison of Humphrey Statpac2 and pointwise linear regression analysis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1996;234:411-418.
21. 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;81:1037-1042.
22. Nouri-Mahdavi K, Caprioli J, Coleman AL, Hoffman D, Gaasterland D. Pointwise linear regression for evaluation of visual field outcomes and comparison with the advanced glaucoma intervention study methods. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123:193-199.
23. Strouthidis NG, White ET, Owen VM, Ho TA, Garway-Heath DF. Improving the repeatability of Heidelberg retina tomograph and Heidelberg retina tomograph II rim area measurements. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89:1433-1537.
24. Gardiner SK, Crabb DP. Examination of different pointwise linear regression methods for determining visual field progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:1400-1407.
25. Heijl A, Lindgren A, Lindgren G. Test-retest variability in glaucomatous visual fields. Am J Ophthalmol. 1989;108:130-135.
26. Boeglin RJ, Caprioli J, Zulauf M. Long-term fluctuation of the visual field in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 1992;113:396-400.
27. Hutchings N, Wild JM, Hussey MK, Flanagan JG, Trope GE. The long-term fluctuation of the visual field in stable glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:3429-3436.
28. Gardiner SK, Crabb DP. Frequency of testing for detecting visual field progression. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86:560-564.
29. Vesti E, Johnson CA, Chauhan BC. Comparison of different methods for detecting glaucomatous visual field progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:3873-3879.
30. Keltner JL, Johnson CA, Levine RA, et al. Normal visual field test results following glaucomatous visual field end points in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123: 1201-1206.
31. Heijl A, Bengtsson B, Lindgren G. Visual field progression in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 1998;82:1097-1098.
32. Jansonius NM. Towards an optimal perimetric strategy for progression detection in glaucoma: from fixed-space to adaptive inter-test intervals. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2006; 244:390-393.
33. Johnson C, Cioffi G, Liebmann J, Sample P, Zangwill L, Weinreb R. The relationship between structural and functional alterations in glaucoma: a review. Semin Ophthalmol. 2000;15:221-233.