Effect of glaucomatous damage on repeatability of confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope, scanning laser polarimetry, and optical coherence tomography

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 48, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 1156-1163

  DeLeón Ortega, Julio E ^a   Sakata, Lisandro M ^a   Kakati, Bobby ^a   McGwin Jr , Gerald ^b   Monheit, Blythe E ^a   Arthur, Stella N ^a   Girkin, Christopher A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE SEVERITY; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; LENS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NERVE FIBER; OPTIC NERVE; OPTICAL COHERENCE TOMOGRAPHY; POLARIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCANNING LASER OPHTHALMOSCOPE; TEST RETEST RELIABILITY; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL FIELD DEFECT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; FEMALE; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; LASER; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; OPHTHALMOSCOPY; OPTIC DISK; OPTIC NERVE DISEASE; PATHOLOGY; PERIMETRY; REPRODUCIBILITY; RETINA GANGLION CELL; STANDARD; VISUAL DISORDER;

DIAGNOSTIC AGENT;

ADULT; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; LASERS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NERVE FIBERS; OPHTHALMOSCOPY; OPTIC DISK; OPTIC NERVE DISEASES; PERIMETRY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETINAL GANGLION CELLS; TOMOGRAPHY, OPTICAL COHERENCE; VISION DISORDERS;

EID: 34047246672     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.06-0921     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Sihota R, Gulati V, Agarwal HC, Saxena R, Sharma A, Pandey RM. Variables affecting test-retest variability of Heidelberg Retina Tomograph II stereometric parameters. J Glaucoma. 2002;11:321-328.
2. Strouthidis NG, White ET, Owen VM, Ho TA, Hammond CJ, Garway-Heath DF. Factors affecting the test-retest variability of Heidelberg retina tomograph and Heidelberg retina tomograph II measurements. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89:1427-1432.
3. Zangwill L, Berry CA, Garden VS, Weinreb RN. Reproducibility of retardation measurements with the nerve fiber analyzer II. J Glaucoma. 1997;6:384-389.
4. Lleó-Pérez A, Ortuno-Soto A, Rahhal MS, Martinez-Soriano F, Sanchis-Gimeno JA. Intraobserver reproducibility of retinal nerve fiber layer measurements using scanning laser polarimetry and optical coherence tomography in normal and ocular hypertensive subjects. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2004;14:523-530.
5. Paunescu IA, Schuman JS, Price LL, et al. Reproducibility of nerve fiber thickness, macular thickness, and optic nerve head measurements using StratusOCT. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45:1716-1724.
6. Hatch WV, Flanagan JG, Williams-Lyn DE, Buys YM, Farra T, Trope GE. Interobserver agreement of Heidelberg retina tomograph parameters. J Glaucoma. 1999;8:232-237.
7. Klemm M, Rumberger E, Walter A, Richard G. Reproducibility of measuring retinal nerve fiber density: comparison of optical coherence tomography with the nerve fiber analyzer and the Heidelberg retinal tomography device (in German). Ophthalmologe. 2002;99:345-351.
8. Blumenthal EZ, Horani A, Sasikumar R, Garudadri C, Udaykumar A, Thomas R. Correlating structure with function in end-stage glaucoma. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging. 2006;37:218-223.
9. Heijl A, Lindgren A, Lindgren G. Test-retest variability in glaucomatous visual fields. Am J Ophthalmol. 1989;108:130-135.
10. Chauhan BC, Blanchard JW, Hamilton DC, LeBlanc RP. Technique for detecting serial topographic changes in the optic disc and peripapillary retina using scanning laser tomography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:775-782.
11. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. Evaluation of a new perimetric threshold strategy, SITA, in patients with manifest and suspect glaucoma. Act Ophthalmol Scand. 1998;76:268-272.
12. Hodapp E, Parrish RK II, Anderson DR. Clinical Decisions in Glaucoma. St. Louis: Mosby-Year Book; 1993.
13. Greenfield DS. Optic nerve and retinal nerve fiber layer analyzers in glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2002;13:68-76.
14. Jaffe GJ, Caprioli J. Optical coherence tomography to detect and manage retinal disease and glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;137:156-169.
15. Stein DM, Wollstein G, Schuman JS. Imaging in glaucoma. Ophthalmol Clin North Am. 2004;17:33-52.
16. Zangwill LM, Chang CF, Williams JM, Weinreb RN. New technologies for diagnosing and monitoring glaucomatous optic neuropathy. Optom Vis Sci. 1999;76:526-536.
17. Weinreb RN, Bowd C, Greenfield DS, Zangwill LM. Measurement of the magnitude and axis of corneal polarization with scanning laser polarimetry. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:901-906.
18. Weinreb RN, Bowd C, Zangwill LM. Scanning laser polarimetry in monkey eyes using variable corneal polarization compensation. J Glaucoma. 2002;11:378-384.
19. Reus NJ, Lemij HG. Diagnostic accuracy of the GDx VCC for glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2004;111:1860-1865.
20. Bagga H, Greenfield DS, Feuer WJ. Quantitative assessment of atypical birefringence images using scanning laser polarimetry with variable corneal compensation. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;139:437-446.
21. Chauhan DS, Marshall J. The interpretation of optical coherence tomography images of the retina. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40:2332-2342.
22. Girkin CA, McGwin G Jr, McNeal SF, DeLeon-Ortega J. Racial differences in the association between optic disc topography and early glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:3382-3387.
23. Ferris FL 3rd, Kassoff A, Bresnick GH, Bailey I. New visual acuity charts for clinical research. Am J Ophthalmol. 1982;94:91-96.
24. Chylack LT Jr, Wolfe JK, Singer DM, et al. The Lens Opacities Classification System III. The Longitudinal Study of Cataract Study Group. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993;111:831-836.
25. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8:135-160.
26. Bland JM, Altman DG. Transformations, means, and confidence intervals. BMJ. 1996;312:1079.
27. Bland JM, Altman DG. The use of transformation when comparing two means. BMJ. 1996;312:1153.
28. Bland JM, Altman DG. Transforming data. BMJ. 1996;312:770.
29. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measurement error proportional to the mean. BMJ. 1996;313:106.
30. Bland JM. Comparing within-subject variances in a study to compare two methods of measurement. Available at http://www-usersyorkacuk/~mb55/meas/ compsdhtm. April 22, 2001. Accessed May 6, 2006.
31. Optical Coherence Tomographer Model 3000. Dublin, CA: Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc.; Revision A1/02.
32. GDx VCC Operation Manual. Ver. 5.1. Dublin, CA: Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc.
33. Jampel HD, Vitale S, Ding Y, et al. Test-retest variability in structural and functional parameters of glaucoma damage in the glaucoma imaging longitudinal study. J Glaucoma. 2006;15:152-157.
34. Lesk MR, Spaeth GL, Azuara-Blanco A, et al. Reversal of optic disc cupping after glaucoma surgery analyzed with a scanning laser tomograph. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:1013-1018.
35. Lee BL, Zangwill L, Weinreb RN. Change in optic disc topography associated with diurnal variation in intraocular pressure. J Glaucoma. 1999;8:221-223.
36. Bowd C, Weinreb RN, Lee B, Emdadi A, Zangwill LM. Optic disk topography after medical treatment to reduce intraocular pressure. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;130:280-286.