Screening tests for detecting open-angle glaucoma: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 49, Issue 12, 2008, Pages 5373-5385

  Mowatt, Graham ^a   Burr, Jennifer M ^a,b   Cook, Jonathan A ^a   Rehman Siddiqui, M A ^b   Ramsay, Craig ^a   Fraser, Cynthia ^a   Azuara Blanco, Augusto ^b   Deeks, Jonathan J ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^b ABERDEEN ROYAL INFIRMARY   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL TRIAL; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; HEIDELBERG RETINAL TOMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; META ANALYSIS; OPEN ANGLE GLAUCOMA; OPHTHALMOSCOPY; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REVIEW; SCREENING TEST; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TONOMETRY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; OCULOPLETHYSMOGRAPHY; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; REPRODUCIBILITY; TOMOGRAPHY; VISUAL SYSTEM EXAMINATION;

DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES, OPHTHALMOLOGICAL; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; GLAUCOMA, OPEN-ANGLE; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; OPHTHALMOSCOPY; PERIMETRY; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY; TONOMETRY, OCULAR;

EID: 58149252706     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: 15525783     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.07-1501     Document Type: Review

References (86)

1. Quigley HA, Broman AT. The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90:262-267.
2. Resnikoff S, Pascolini D, Etya'ale D, et al. Global data on visual impairment in the year 2002. Bull World Health Organ. 2004;82:844-851.
3. Grant WM, Burke JF Jr. Why do some people go blind from glaucoma? Ophthalmology. 1982;89:991-998.
4. Leske MC, Heijl A, Hussein M, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Komaroff E. Factors for glaucoma progression and the effect of treatment: The Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121:48-56. (Pubitemid 36401765)
5. Wilson R, Walker AM, Dueker DK, Crick RP. Risk factors for rate of progression of glaucomatous visual field loss: a computer-based analysis. Arch Ophthalmol. 1982;100:737-741.
6. Burr JM, Mowatt G, Hernandez R, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening for open angle glaucoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11:1-190.
7. Fleming C, Whitlock E, Biel T, Smit B. Primary care screening for ocular hypertension and primary open-angle glaucoma: Evidence Synthesis No 34 [document on the Internet]. Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality, US Preventive Services Task Force; 2005 Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf05/ glaucoma/glaucsyn.pdf. Accessed April 2008.
8. Maier PC, Funk J, Schwarzer G, Antes G, Falck-Ytter YT. Treatment of ocular hypertension and open angle glaucoma: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2005;331:134-136. (Pubitemid 41003170)
9. Spry PG, Sparrow JM. An evaluation of open-angle glaucoma against the NSC criteria for screening viability, effectiveness and appropriateness [document on the Internet]. UK National Screening Committee; 2005. Available at: http://www.library.nhs.uk/screening/ViewResource.aspx?resID=61002&tabID=288. Accessed October 2008.
10. FinOHTA. Cost-effectiveness of glaucoma screening (project). Finish Office for Health Technology Assessment; 2005. Available at: http://finohta.stakes.fi/EN/research/index.htm. Accessed April 2008.
11. Screening for glaucoma: an update-non-systematic review (project). Agence d'Evaluation des Technologies et des Modes d'Intervention en Sante (AETMIS); 2007. Avalable at: http://www.aetmis.gouv.qc.ca. Accessed April 2008.
12. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:25. (Pubitemid 38789561)
13. Rutter CM, Gatsonis CA. A hierarchical regression approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. Stat Med. 2001;20:2865-2884.
14. Spiegelhalter D, Thomas A, Best N. WinBUGS: Bayesian inference using Gibbs sampling. User manual, version 1.4. Cambridge, UK: MRC Biostatistics Unit; 2003.
15. Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH, Bonsel GJ, Bossuyt PM. The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:1129-1135.
16. Anton A, Andrada MT, Mujica V, Calle MA, Portela J, Mayo A. Prevalence of primary open-angle glaucoma in a Spanish population: the Segovia study. J Glaucoma. 2004;13:371-376. (Pubitemid 39281577)
17. Bengtsson B. Findings associated with glaucomatous visual field defects. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1980;58:20-32. (Pubitemid 10129480)
18. Bonomi L, Marchini G, Marraffa M, Morbio R. The relationship between intraocular pressure and glaucoma in a defined population: data from the Egna-Neumarkt Glaucoma Study. Ophthalmologica. 2001;215:34-38. (Pubitemid 32011328)
19. Christoffersen T, Fors T, Waage S, Holtedahl K. Glaucoma screening with oculokinetic perimetry in general practice: is its specificity acceptable? Eye. 1995;9:36-39. (Pubitemid 26018178)
20. Detry-Morel M, Zeyen T, Kestelyn P, Collignon J, Goethals M; Belgian Glaucoma Society. Screening for glaucoma in a general population with the non-mydriatic fundus camera and the frequency doubling perimeter. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2004;14:387-393. (Pubitemid 39481942)
21. Harasymowycz P, Papamatheakis D, Fansi AK, Gresset J, Lesk MR. Validity of screening for glaucomatous optic nerve damage using confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (Heidelberg Retina Tomograph II) in high-risk populations: a pilot study. Ophthalmology. 2005;112:2164-2171. (Pubitemid 41720996)
22. Hollows FC, Graham PA. Intra-ocular pressure glaucoma and glaucoma suspects in a defined population. Br J Ophthalmol. 1966;50:570-586.
23. Ivers RQ, Optom B, Macaskill P, Cumming RG, Mitchell P. Sensitivity and specificity of tests to detect eye disease in an older population. Ophthalmology. 2001;108:968-975. (Pubitemid 32374255)
24. Katz J, Sommer A, Gaasterland DE, Anderson DR. Comparison of analytic algorithms for detecting glaucomatous visual field loss. Arch Ophthalmol. 1991;109:1684-1689.
25. Katz J, Tielsch JM, Quigley HA, Javitt J, Witt K, Sommer A. Automated suprathreshold screening for glaucoma: the Baltimore Eye Survey. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1993;34:3271-3277. (Pubitemid 23346659)
26. Katz J, Quigley HA, Sommer A. Repeatability of the Glaucoma Hemifield Test in automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1995;36:1658-1664.
27. Kozobolis VP, Detorakis ET, Tsilimbaris M, et al. Crete, Greece glaucoma study. J Glaucoma. 2000;9:143-149.
28. Mansberger SL, Johnson CA, Cioffi GA, et al. Predictive value of frequency doubling technology perimetry for detecting glaucoma in a developing country. J Glaucoma. 2005;14:128-134.
29. Mundorf TK, Zimmerman TJ, Nardin GF, Kendall KS. Automated perimetry, tonometry, and questionnaire in glaucoma screening. Am J Ophthalmol. 1989;108:505-508. (Pubitemid 19280557)
30. Robin TA, Muller A, Rait J, Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. Performance of community-based glaucoma screening using frequency doubling technology and Heidelberg retinal tomography. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2005;12:167-178. (Pubitemid 41702813)
31. Tielsch JM, Katz J, Singh K, et al. A population-based evaluation of glaucoma screening: the Baltimore Eye Survey. Am J Epidemiol. 1991;134:1102-1110.
32. Vernon SA, Henry DJ, Cater L, Jones SJ. Screening for glaucoma in the community by non-ophthalmologically trained staff using semi automated equipment. Eye. 1990;4:89-97. (Pubitemid 20304621)
33. Vernon SA, Jones SJ, Henry DJ. Maximising the sensitivity and specificity of non-contact tonometry in glaucoma screening. Eye. 1991;5:491-493.
34. Vitale S, Smith TD, Quigley T, et al. Screening performance of functional and structural measurements of neural damage in open-angle glaucoma: a case-control study from the Baltimore Eye Survey. J Glaucoma. 2000;9:346-356. (Pubitemid 32472301)
35. Wang F, Quigley HA, Tielsch JM. Screening for glaucoma in a medical clinic with photographs of the nerve fiber layer. Arch Ophthalmol. 1994;112:796-800. (Pubitemid 24180517)
36. Wang F, Tielsch JM, Ford DE, Quigley HA, Whelton PK. Evaluation of screening schemes for eye disease in a primary care setting. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1998;5:69-82. (Pubitemid 28342480)
37. Weih LM, Nanjan M, McCarty CA, Taylor HR. Prevalence and predictors of open-angle glaucoma: results from the visual impairment project. Ophthalmology. 2001;108:1966-1972. (Pubitemid 33032762)
38. Wolfs RC, Ramrattan RS, Hofman A, de Jong PT. Cup-to-disc ratio: ophthalmoscopy versus automated measurement in a general population: The Rotterdam Study. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:1597-1601. (Pubitemid 30214361)
39. Yamada N, Chen PP, Mills RP, et al. Screening for glaucoma with frequency-doubling technology and Damato campimetry. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117:1479-1484. (Pubitemid 29536475)
40. Ekstrom C. Elevated intraocular pressure and pseudoexfoliation of the lens capsule as risk factors for chronic open angle glaucoma-a population based 5 year follow up study. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1993;71:189-195. (Pubitemid 23172670)
41. Hammond EA, Begley PK. Screening for glaucoma: a comparison of ophthalmoscopy and tonometry. Nurs Res. 1979;28:371-372.
42. Khong JJ, Dimitrov PN, Rait J, McCarty CA. Can the specificity of the FDT for glaucoma be improved by confirming abnormal results? J Glaucoma. 2001;10:199-202. (Pubitemid 32553581)
43. Leibowitz HM, Krueger DE, Maunder LR, et al. The Framingham Eye Study monograph: an ophthalmological and epidemiological study of cataract, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, macular degeneration, and visual acuity in a general population of 2631 adults 1973-1975. Surv Ophthalmol. 1980;24:335-610.
44. Marraffa M, Marchini G, Albertini R, Bonomi L. Comparison of different screening methods for the detection of visual field defects in early glaucoma. Int Ophthalmol. 1989;13:43-45. (Pubitemid 19142262)
45. Schultz RO, Radius RL, Hartz AJ, et al. Screening for glaucoma with stereo disc photography. J Glaucoma. 1995;4:177-182.
46. Spry PGD, Hussin HM, Sparrow JM. Clinical evaluation of frequency doubling technology perimetry using the Humphrey Matrix 24-2 threshold strategy. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89:1031-1935.
47. Theodossiades J, Murdoch I. What optic disc parameters are most accurately assessed using the direct ophthalmoscope? Eye. 2001;15:283-287. (Pubitemid 32600823)
48. Airaksinen PJ, Drance SM, Douglas GR, Mawson DK, Nieminen H. Diffuse and localized nerve fiber loss in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 1984;98:566-571.
49. Anton A, Maquet JA, Mayo A, Tapia J, Pastor JC. Value of logistic discriminant analysis for interpreting initial visual field defects. Ophthalmology. 1997;104:525-531. (Pubitemid 27120312)
50. Damato BE, Ahmed J, Allan D, McClure E, Jay JL. The detection of glaucomatous visual field defects by oculo-kinetic perimetry: which points are best for screening? Eye. 1989;3:727-731. (Pubitemid 20074134)
51. Enger C, Sommer A. Recognizing glaucomatous field loss with the Humphrey STATPAC. Arch Ophthalmol. 1987;105:1355-1357. (Pubitemid 17149924)
52. Harper RA, Hill AR, Reeves BC. Effectiveness of unsupervised oculokinetic perimetry for detecting glaucomatous visual field defects. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1994;14:199-202.
53. Heeg GP, Blanksma LJ, Hardus PL, Jansonius NM. The Groningen Longitudinal Glaucoma Study. I. Baseline sensitivity and specificity of the frequency doubling perimeter and the GDx nerve fibre analyser. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2005;83:46-52.
54. Heeg GP, Stoutenbeek R, Jansonius NM. Strategies for improving the diagnostic specificity of the frequency doubling perimeter. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2005;83:53-56. (Pubitemid 40326421)
55. Ieong A, Murdoch I, Cousens S, Healey P, Theodossiades J. Sensitivity and specificity of two glaucoma case-finding strategies for optometrists. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2003;23:341-346. (Pubitemid 41711070)
56. Johnson CA, Cioffi GA, Van Buskirk EM. Evaluation of Two Screening Tests for Frequency Doubling Technology Perimetry. 13th International Perimetric Society Meeting, Garda, Italy, September 1999:103.
57. Quigley HA, Miller NR, George T. Clinical evaluation of nerve fiber layer atrophy as an indicator of glaucomatous optic nerve damage. Arch Ophthalmol. 1980;98:1564-1571. (Pubitemid 10001098)
58. Sommer A, Pollack I, Maumenee AE. Optic disc parameters and onset of glaucomatous field loss. II. Static screening criteria. Arch Ophthalmol. 1979;97:1449-1454. (Pubitemid 9212725)
59. Stoutenbeek R, Heeg GP, Jansonius NM. Frequency doubling perimetry screening mode compared to the full-threshold mode. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2004;24:493-497. (Pubitemid 41710985)
60. Wollstein G, Garway-Heath DF, Fontana L, Hitchings RA. Identifying early glaucomatous changes: comparison between expert clinical assessment of optic disc photographs and confocal scanning ophthalmoscopy. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:2272-2277.
61. Wood CM. Limitations of direct ophthalmoscopy in screening for glaucoma. BMJ. 1987;294:1587-1588.
62. Gatsonis C, Paliwal P. Meta-analysis of diagnostic and screening test accuracy evaluations: methodologic primer. Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:271-281. (Pubitemid 44148267)
63. Kardaun JW, Kardaun OJ. Comparative diagnostic performance of three radiological procedures for the detection of lumbar disk herniation. Methods Inf Med. 1990;29:12-22.
64. Macaskill P. Empirical Bayes estimates generated in a hierarchical summary ROC analysis agreed closely with those of a full Bayesian analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57:925-932. (Pubitemid 39422529)
65. Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B. Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med. 1993;12:1293-1316. (Pubitemid 23230833)
66. Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, Scholten RJ, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:982-990.
67. Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Working Group [website on the Internet]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2008 Available at: http://srdta.cochrane. org/en/index.html. Accessed April 2008.
68. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.0.0 (updated February 2008) [document on the Internet]. The Cochrane Library. Issue 2, 2008. Chichester, UK: John Wiley& Sons Ltd Available at: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org/. Accessed April 2008.
69. Medeiros FA, Zangwill LM, Bowd C, Sample PA, Weinreb RN. Use of progressive glaucomatous optic disk change as the reference standard for evaluation of diagnostic tests in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;139:1010-1018. (Pubitemid 40813311)
70. Weinreb RN, Khaw KT. Primary open-angle glaucoma. Lancet. 2004;363:1711-1720.
71. Wild JM, Kim LS, Pacey IE, Cunliffe IA. Evidence for a learning effect in short-wavelength automated perimetry. Ophthalmology. 2006;113:206-215. (Pubitemid 43170769)
72. Yenice O, Temel A. Evaluation of two Humphrey perimetry programs: full threshold and SITA standard testing strategy for learning effect. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2005;15:209-212. (Pubitemid 40676994)
73. Matsuo H, Tomita G, Suzuki Y, Araie M. Learning effect and measurement variability in frequency-doubling technology perimetry in chronic open-angle glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2002;11:467-473. (Pubitemid 36015102)
74. Joson PJ, Kamantigue ME, Chen PP. Learning effects among perimetric novices in frequency doubling technology perimetry. Ophthalmology. 2002;109:757-760. (Pubitemid 34270135)
75. Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Di Nisio M, Smidt N, van Rijn JC, Bossuyt PM. Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies. Can Med Assoc J. 2006;174:469-476. (Pubitemid 43294861)
76. Bochmann F, Johnson Z, Azuara-Blanco A. Sample size of studies of diagnostic accuracy in ophthalmology: literature survey. Br J Ophthalmol. 2007;91:898-900. (Pubitemid 47013100)
77. Johnson Z, Siddiqui MAR, Azuara-Blanco A. The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies of optical coherence tomography in glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:1607-1612. (Pubitemid 47332663)
78. Paranjothy B, Shunmugam M, Azuara-Blanco A. The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies in glaucoma using scanning laser polarimetry. J Glaucoma. 2007;16:670-675. (Pubitemid 350307627)
79. Shunmugam M, Azuara-Blanco A. The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies in glaucoma using the Heidelberg retina tomograph. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:2317-2323. (Pubitemid 351639810)
80. Wang YX, Xu L, Zhang RX, Jonas JB. Frequency-doubling threshold perimetry in predicting glaucoma in a population-based study: The Beijing Eye Study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2007;125:1402-1406. (Pubitemid 47606608)
81. Mansberger SL, Johnson CA, Cioffi GA. The results of screening frequency doubling technology perimetry in different locations of the community. J Glaucoma. 2007;16:73-80.
82. Iwase A, Tomidokoro A, Araie M, et al. Performance of frequencydoubling technology perimetry in a population-based prevalence survey of glaucoma: the Tajimi study. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:27-32. (Pubitemid 46014283)
83. Toth M, Kothy P, Vargha P, Hollo G. Accuracy of combined GDx-VCC and matrix FDT in a glaucoma screening trial. J Glaucoma. 2007;16:462-470. (Pubitemid 47263049)
84. Vistamehr S, Shelsta HN, Palmisano PC, et al. Glaucoma screening in a high-risk population. J Glaucoma. 2006;15:534-540.
85. Hawker MJ, Vernon SA, Tattersall CL, Dua HS. Linear regression modeling of rim area to discriminate between normal and glaucomatous optic nerve heads: the Bridlington Eye Assessment Project. J Glaucoma. 2007;16:345-351.
86. Ohkubo S, Takeda H, Higashide T, Sasaki T, Sugiyama K. A pilot study to detect glaucoma with confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy compared with nonmydriatic stereoscopic photography in a community health screening. J Glaucoma. 2007;16:531-538. (Pubitemid 47415209)