Retinal nerve fibre thickness measured with optical coherence tomography accurately detects confirmed glaucomatous damage

British Journal of Ophthalmology

Volumn 91, Issue 7, 2007, Pages 905-907

  Hood, D C ^a   Harizman, N ^b   Kanadani, F N ^b   Grippo, T M ^b   Baharestani, S ^b   Greenstein, V C ^a,c   Liebmann, J M ^b,c   Ritch, R ^b  

^a Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

^b NEW YORK EYE AND EAR INFIRMARY   (United States)

^c NEW YORK UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; EVOKED VISUAL RESPONSE; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; OPTICAL COHERENCE TOMOGRAPHY; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETINA INJURY; RETINA NERVE CELL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; THICKNESS; VISUAL FIELD DEFECT;

AGED; EVOKED POTENTIALS, VISUAL; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; NERVE FIBERS; PERIMETRY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RETINAL GANGLION CELLS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, OPTICAL COHERENCE; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 34347338731     PISSN: 00071161     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2006.111252     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Kerrigan-Boumrind LA, Quigley HA, Pease ME, et al. Number of ganglion cells in glaucoma eyes compared with threshold visual field tests in the same persons. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000;41:741-8.
2. Zangwill LM, Williams J, Berry CC, et al. A comparison of optical coherence tomography and retinal nerve fiber layer photography for detection of nerve fiber layer damage in glaucoma. Ophthalmol 2000;107:1309-15.
3. Sanchez-Galeana C, Bowd C, Blumenthal EZ, et al. Using optical imaging summary data to detect glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2001;108:1812-18.
4. Nouri-Mahdavi K, Hoffman D, Tannenbaum DP, et al. Identifying early glaucoma with optical coherence tomography. Am J Ophthalmol 2004;137:228-35.
5. Budenz DL, Michael A, Chang RT, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of the StratusOCT for perimetric glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2005;112:3-9.
6. Huang ML, Chen HY. Development and comparison of automated classifiers for glaucoma diagnosis using Stratus optical coherence tomography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005;46:4121-9.
7. Jeoung JW, Park KH, Kim TW, et al. Diagnostic ability of optical coherence tomography with a normative database to detect localized retinal nerve fiber layer defects. Ophthalmology 2005;112:2157-63.
8. Medeiros FA, Zangwill LM, Bowd C, et al. Evaluation of retinal nerve fiber layer, optic nerve head, and macular thickness measurements for glaucoma detection using optical coherence tomography. Am J Ophthalmol 2005;139:44-55.
9. Wollstein G, Ishikawa H, Wang J, et al. Comparison of three optical coherence tomography scanning areas for detection of glaucomatous damage. Am J Ophthalmol 2005;139:39-43.
10. Kanamori A, Nagai-Kusuhara A, Escano MF, et al. Comparison of confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy, scanning laser polarimetry and optical coherence tomography to discriminate ocular hypertension and glaucoma at an early stage. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2006;244:58-68.
11. Brusini P, Safvetat ML, Zeppieri M, et al. Comparison between GDx VCC scanning laser polarimetry and Stratus OCT optical coherence tomography in the diagnosis of chronic glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2006;84:650-5.
12. Shah NN, Bowd C, Medeiros FA, et al. Combining structural and functional testing for detection of glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2006;113:1593-602.
13. Convento E, Midena E, Dorigo MT, et al. Peripapillary fundus perimetry in eyes with glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 2006;90:1398-403.
14. Medeiros FA, Zangwill LM, Bowd C, et al. Influence of disease severity and optic disc size on the diagnostic performance of imaging instruments in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006;47:1008- 15.
15. Stein JD, Girkin CA, Harizman N, et al. A comparison of false-positive test results among the Stratus OCT-3, the GDx-VCC, and the HRT II. (under review).
16. Hood DC, Li X, Thienprasiddhi P, et al. The pattern electroretinogram (PERG) in glaucoma patients with visual field deficits confirmed with automated perimetry and multifocal VEP. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005;46:2411-18.
17. Hood DC, Thienprasiddhi P, Greenstein VC, et al. Detecting early to mild glaucomatous damage: A comparison of the multifocal VEP and automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004;45:492-8.
18. Hood DC, Greenstein VC. The multifocal VEP and ganglion cell damage: applications and limitations for the study of glaucoma. Prog Retin Eye Res 2003;22:201-51.
19. Chauhan BC, Henson DB, Hobley AJ. Cluster analysis in visual field quantification. Doc Ophthalmol 1988;69:25-39.
20. Katz J, Sommer A, Gaasterland DE, et al. Comparison of analytic algorithms for detecting glaucomatous visual field loss. Arch Ophthalmol 1991;109:1684-9.