Spatial characteristics of visual field progression determined by Monte Carlo simulation: Diagnostic innovations in glaucoma study

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 48, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 1642-1650

  Pascual, John P ^a   Schiefer, Ulrich ^b   Paetzold, Jens ^b   Zangwill, Linda M ^a   Tavares, Ivan M ^c   Weinreb, Robert N ^a   Sample, Pamela A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

^c FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUTOANALYZER; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE COURSE; FOLLOW UP; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; INTRAOCULAR HYPERTENSION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MONTE CARLO METHOD; OPTIC NERVE DISEASE; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; STEREOPHOTOGRAMMETRY; VISUAL FIELD; COMPUTER SIMULATION; SCOTOMA;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; DISEASE PROGRESSION; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; OPTIC NERVE DISEASES; PERIMETRY; SCOTOMA; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 34248347422     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.06-0966     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Weber J, Ulrich H. A perimetric nerve fiber bundle map. Int Ophthalmol. 1991;15:193-200.
2. Garway-Heath DF, Poinoosawmy D, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA. Mapping the visual field to the optic disc in normal tension glaucoma eyes. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:1809-1815.
3. Anderson DR, Patella VM. Automated Static Perimetry. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby, Inc.; 1999.
4. Heijl A, Lindgren A, Lindgren G. Test-retest variability in glaucomatous visual fields. Am J Ophthalmol. 1989;108:130-135.
5. Leske MC, Heijl A, Hyman L, Bengtsson B. Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial: design and baseline data. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:2144-2153.
6. Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA, Poinoosawmy D, McNaught AI, Crabb DP. Analysis of visual field progression in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 1996;80:40-48.
7. Musch DC, Lichter PR, Guire KE, Standardi CL. The Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study: study design, methods, and baseline characteristics of enrolled patients. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:653-662.
8. AGIS A. Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study. 2. Visual field test scoring and reliability. Ophthalmology. 1994;101:1445-1455.
9. Spry PG, Johnson CA. Identification of progressive glaucomatous visual field loss. Surv Ophthalmol. 2002;47:158-173.
10. Mills RP, Budenz DL, Lee PP, et al. Categorizing the stage of glaucoma from pre-diagnosis to end-stage disease. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;141:24-30.
11. Blumenthal EZ, Sapir-Pichhadze R. Misleading statistical calculations in far-advanced glaucomatous visual field loss. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:196-200.
12. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J, Asman P. Visual field interpretation with empiric probability maps. Arch Ophthalmol. 1989;107:204-208.
13. Mooney CZ. Monte Carlo Simulation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 1997:103.
14. Weber J, Dannheim F, Dannheim D. The topographical relationship between optic disc and visual field in glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1990;68:568-574.
15. 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.
16. Sample PA, Boden C, Zhang Z, et al. Unsupervised machine learning with independent component analysis to identify areas of progression in glaucomatous visual fields. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:3684-3692.
17. Mikelberg FS, Drance SM. The mode of progression of visual field defects in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 1984;98:443-445.
18. Boden C, Blumenthal EZ, Pascual J, et al. Patterns of glaucomatous visual field progression identified by three progression criteria. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;138:1029-1036.