Correlation of Disc Damage Likelihood Scale, visual field, and Heidelberg Retina Tomograph II in patients with glaucoma

European Journal of Ophthalmology

Volumn 18, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 739-747

  Hornová, Jara ^a   Navarro, J B V Kuntz ^b   Prasad, A ^b   Freitas, D G J ^b   Nunes, C M ^b  

^a CHARLES UNIVERSITY   (Czech Republic)

^b THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Disc Damage Likelihood Scale; Glaucoma; Heidelberg Retina Tomograph; Optic disc; Visual field

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL CLASSIFICATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; CUP SHAPE MEASURE; DISC DAMAGE LIKELIHOOD SCALE; HEIDELBERG RETINA TOMOGRAPH II; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MOORFIELDS REGRESSION ANALYSIS; OPEN ANGLE GLAUCOMA; OPTIC NERVE; OPTICAL TOMOGRAPHY; PERIMETER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RATING SCALE; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL FIELD DEFECT; VISUAL INFORMATION; VISUAL SYSTEM EXAMINATION; VISUAL SYSTEM PARAMETERS;

EID: 54349099247     PISSN: 11206721     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/112067210801800513     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Danesh-Meyer HV, Ku JY, Papchenko TL, et al. Regional correlation of structure and function in glaucoma, using the Disc Damage Likelihood Scale, Heidelberg Retina Tomograph, and visual fields. Ophthalmology 2006; 113: 603-11.
2. Henderer JD. Disc damage likelihood scale. Br J Ophthalmol 2006; 90: 395-6.
3. Cioffi GA, Robin AL, Eastman RD, et al. Confocal laser scanning ophthalmoscope. Reproducibility of optic nerve head topographic measurements with the confocal laser scanning ophthalmoscope. Ophthalmology 1993; 100: 57-62.
4. Budde WM, Jonas JB, Martus P, Grundler AE. Influence of optic disc size on neuroretinal rim shape in healthy eyes. J Glaucoma 2000; 9: 357-62.
5. Spaeth GL, Henderer J, Liu C, et al. The disc damage likelihood scale: reproducibility of a new method of estimating the amount of optic nerve damage caused by glaucoma. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 2002; 100: 181-5; discussion 5-6.
6. Kamal DS, Viswanathan AC, Garway-Heath DF, et al. 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: 290-4.
7. Danesh-Meyer HV, Gaskin BJ, Jayusundera T, et al. Comparison of disc damage likelihood scale, cup to disc ratio, and Heidelberg retina tomograph in the diagnosis of glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 2006; 90: 437-41.
8. Bayer A, Harasymowycz P, Henderer JD, et al. Validity of a new disk grading scale for estimating glaucomatous damage: correlation with visual field damage. Am J Ophthalmol 2002; 133: 758-63.
9. Aulhorn E. Frequency distribution in early glaucomatous visual field defects. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Series 1977; 14: 75-83.
10. Greve EL, Geijssen H. The relation between excavation and visual field in glaucoma patients with high and low intraocular pressures. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Series 1983; 35: 35-42.
11. Rhee DJ. Color Atlas & Synopsis of Clinical Ophthalmology. Wills Eye Hospital-Glaucoma. 1st ed. Philadelphia, PA: McGraw-Hill, 2003; 224.
12. Kiriyama N, Ando A, Fukui C, et al. A comparison of optic disc topographic parameters in patients with primary open angle glaucoma, normal tension glaucoma, and ocular hypertension. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2003; 241: 541-5.
13. Nakano S, Takita T, Imaizumi M, Nakatsuka K. [Heidelberg Retina Tomograph II topographic parameters, diagnostic capabilities of moorfields regression analysis, and their affecting factors.] Nippon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi 2006; 110: 943-9.
14. Iester M, Mikelberg FS, Courtright P, Drance SM. Correlation between the visual field indices and Heidelberg retina tomograph parameters. J Glaucoma 1997; 6: 78-82.
15. Brigatti L, Caprioli J. Correlation of visual field with scanning confocal laser optic disc measurements in glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1995; 113: 1191-4.
16. Liu X, Ling Y, Zheng X, Huang J. Study on stereometric parameters of optic nerve head of normal, big-cupped disk and glaucomatous eyes using Heidelberg retina tomograph. Yan Ke Xue Bao 2000; 16: 163-7.
17. Vihanninjoki K, Teesalu P, Burk RO, et al. Search for an optimal combination of structural and functional parameters for the diagnosis of glaucoma: multivariate analysis of confocal scanning laser tomograph, blue-on-yellow visual field and retinal nerve fiber layer data. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2000; 238: 477-81.
18. Tole DM, Edwards MP, Davey KG, Menage MJ. The correlation of the visual field with scanning laser ophthalmoscope measurements in glaucoma. Eye 1998; 12: 686-90.
19. Strouthidis NG, Vinciotti V, Tucker AJ, et al. Structure and function in glaucoma: the relationship between a functional visual field map and an anatomic retinal map. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006; 47: 5356-62.
20. Polo V, Larrosa JM, Pablo LE, et al. Correlation of functional and structural measurements in eyes suspected of having glaucoma. J Glaucoma 1999; 8: 172-6.
21. Lee KH, Park KH, Kim DM, Youn DH. Relationship between optic nerve head parameters of Heidelberg Retina Tomograph and visual field defects in primary open-angle glaucoma. Korean J Ophthalmol 1996; 10: 24-8.
22. Kim J, Dally LG, Ederer F, et al. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 14. Distinguishing progression of glaucoma from visual field fluctuations. Ophthalmology 2004; 111: 2109-16.