Agreement between stereophotographic and confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy measurements of cup/disc ratio: Effect on a predictive model for glaucoma development

Journal of Glaucoma

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 209-214

  Medeiros, Felipe A ^a   Zangwill, Linda M ^a   Bowd, Christopher ^a   Vasile, Cristiana ^a   Sample, Pamela A ^a   Weinreb, Robert N ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy; Glaucoma; Ocular hypertension; Risk

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORNEA THICKNESS; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DIABETES MELLITUS; GLAUCOMA; HEIDELBERG RETINA TOMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; INTRAOCULAR HYPERTENSION; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OPTIC DISK CUP; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCANNING LASER OPHTHALMOSCOPY; STEREOPHOTOGRAMMETRY; TOMOGRAPHY; VISUAL FIELD;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; LASERS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OCULAR HYPERTENSION; OPHTHALMOSCOPY; OPTIC DISK; OPTIC NERVE DISEASES; PHOTOGRAPHY; RISK FACTORS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 34247636803     PISSN: 10570829     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e31802d695c     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. 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;120:714-720; discussion 829-830.
2. 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.
3. Hertzog LH, Albrecht KG, LaBree L, et al. Glaucoma care and conformance with preferred practice patterns. Examination of the private, community-based ophthalmologist. Ophthalmology. 1996;103:1009-1013.
4. Quigley HA, Jampel HD. How are glaucoma patients identified? J Glaucoma. 2003;12:451-455.
5. Fremont AM, Lee PP, Mangione CM, et al. Patterns of care for open-angle glaucoma in managed care. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121:777-783.
6. Lichter PR. Variability of expert observers in evaluating the optic disc. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1976;74:532-572.
7. Varma R, Steinmann WC, Scott IU. Expert agreement in evaluating the optic disc for glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1992;99:215-221.
8. Tielsch JM, Katz J, Quigley HA, et al. Intraobserver and interobserver agreement in measurement of optic disc characteristics. Ophthalmology. 1988;95:350-356.
9. Weinreb RN, Lusky M, Bartsch DU, et al. Effect of repetitive imaging on topographic measurements of the optic nerve head. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993;111:636-638.
10. Zangwill LM, Medeiros FA, Bowd C, et al. Optic nerve imaging: recent advances. In: Krieglstein GK, Weinreb RN, eds. Essentials in Ophthalmology: Glaucoma. New York: Springer; 2004:63-91.
11. Medeiros FA, Zangwill LM, Bowd C, et al. 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.
12. Miglior S, Albe E, Guareschi M, et al. Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility in the evaluation of optic disc stereometric parameters by Heidelberg Retina Tomograph. Ophthalmology. 2002;109:1072-1077.
13. Garway-Heath DF, Poinoosawmy D, Wollstein G, et al. Inter- and intraobserver variation in the analysis of optic disc images: comparison of the Heidelberg retina tomograph and computer assisted planimetry. Br J Ophthalmol. 1999;83:664-669.
14. Ikram MK, Borger PH, Assink JJ, et al. Comparing ophthalmoscopy, slide viewing, and semiautomated systems in optic disc morphometry. Ophthalmology. 2002;109:486-493.
15. Jonas JB, Mardin CY, Grundler AE. Comparison of measurements of neuroretinal rim area between confocal laser scanning tomography and planimetry of photographs. Br J Ophthalmol. 1998;82:362-366.
16. Vihanninjoki K, Tuulonen A, Burk RO, et al. Comparison of optic disc measurements by Heidelberg Retina Tomograph and manual planimetric techniques. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1997;75:512-515.
17. Dichtl A, Jonas JB, Mardin CY. Comparison between tomographic scanning evaluation and photographic measurement of the neuroretinal rim. Am J Ophthalmol. 1996;121:494-501.
18. Zangwill L, Shakiba S, Caprioli J, et al. Agreement between clinicians and a confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope in estimating cup/disk ratios. Am J Ophthalmol 1995;119:415-421.
19. Zangwill LM, Weinreb RN, Berry CC, et al. The confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy ancillary study to the ocular hypertension treatment study: study design and baseline factors. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;137:219-227.
20. Weinreb RN. Laser scanning tomography to diagnose and monitor glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 1993;4:3-6.
21. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8:135-160.
22. Weinreb RN, Friedman DS, Fechtner RD, et al. Risk assessment in the management of patients with ocular hypertension. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;138:458-467.
23. Zangwill LM, Weinreb RN, Beiser JA, et al. Baseline topographic optic disc measurements are associated with the development of primary open-angle glaucoma: the Confocal Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscopy Ancillary Study to the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123:1188-1197.