Detection of visual-field deterioration by Glaucoma Progression Analysis and Threshold Noiseless Trend programs

British Journal of Ophthalmology

Volumn 93, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 322-328

  Diaz Aleman, V T ^a   Anton, A ^b   Gonzalez De La Rosa, M ^a   Johnson, Z K ^c   McLeod, S ^d   Azuara Blanco, A ^e,f  

^a HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIO DE CANARIAS   (Spain)

^b HOSPITAL DE L ESPERANÇA   (Spain)

^c LEICESTER ROYAL INFIRMARY   (United Kingdom)

^d RAIGMORE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^e NHS GRAMPIAN   (United Kingdom)

^f ABERDEEN ROYAL INFIRMARY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGED; ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE COURSE; EYE EXAMINATION; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; MEDICAL PERSONNEL; OPEN ANGLE GLAUCOMA; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VISUAL FIELD DEFECT;

AGED; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; DIAGNOSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; DISEASE PROGRESSION; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; GLAUCOMA, OPEN-ANGLE; HUMANS; LINEAR MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PERIMETRY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 61749084440     PISSN: 00071161     EISSN: 14682079     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2007.136739     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Lindgren A, et al. Extended empirical statistical package for evaluation of single and multiple field: Statpac 2. In Mills RP, Heijl A, eds. Perimetry update 1990/1. New York: Kugler & Ghedini, 1991:303-15.
2. Boden C, Blumenthal EZ, Pascual J, et al. Patterns of glaucomatous visual field progression identified by three progression criteria. Am J Ophthalmol 2004;138:1029-36.
3. Vesti E, Johnson CA, Chauhan BC. Comparison of different methods for detecting glaucomatous visual field progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003;44:3873-9.
4. Artes PH, Nicolela MT, LeBlanc RP, et al. Visual field progression in glaucoma: total versus pattern deviation analyses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005;46:4600-6.
5. Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, et al. Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial Group. Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120:1268-79.
6. Holmin C, Krakau C. Regression analysis of the central fielding chronic glaucoma cases. Arch Ophthalmol 1982;60:267-74.
7. Nouri-Mahdavi K, Brigatti L, Weitzman M, et al. Comparison of methods to detect visual field progression in glaucoma. Ophthalmology 1997;104:1228-36.
8. Kaufmann H, Flammer J. Die Bebie-Kurve (kumulative Defektkurve) zur Differenzierung von lokalen und diffusen Gesichtsfelddefekten. Fortschr Ophthalmol 1989;86:687-91
9. Pearson PA, Baldwing LB, Smith TJ. The relationship of mean defect to corrected loss variance in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Ophthalmologica 1990;200:16-21.
10. Werner EB, Bishop KI, Koelle J, et al. A comparison of experienced clinical observers and statistical tests in detection of progressive visual field loss in glaucoma using automated perimetry. Arch Ophthalmol 1988;106:619-23.
11. Gardiner SK, Crabb DP. Examination of different pointwise linear regression methods for determining visual field progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002;43:1400-7.
12. Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA, Poinoosawmy D, et al. Analysis of visual field progression in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 1996;80:40-8.
13. Gonzalez de la Rosa M, Gonzalez-Hernandez M, Diaz Aleman T. Linear regression analysis of the cumulative defect curve by sectors and other criteria of glaucomatous visual field progression. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2006;84:577.
14. Fitzke FW, Crabb DP, McNaught AI, et al. Image processing of computerised visual field data. Br J Ophthalmol 1995;79:207-12.
15. Gonzalez de la Rosa M, Gonzalez-Hernandez M, Diaz Aleman T, et al. Stabilization and comparison of TOP and bracketing perimetric strategies using a threshold spatial filter. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2007;245:1303-9.
16. Gonzalez de la Rosa M, Gonzalez Hernandez M, Abraldes M, et al. Quantification of inter-point topographic correlations of threshold values in glaucomatous visual fields. J Glaucoma 2002;11:30-4.
17. Gonzalez de la Rosa M. Method to increase the sensitivity of perimetric trend progression analysis. Br J Ophthalmol 2008;92:1564-5.
18. Artes PH, Chauhan BC. Longitudinal changes in the visual field and optic disc in glaucoma. Prog Retin Eye Res 2005;24:333-54.
19. Chan AB, Chauhan BC, LeBlanc RP, et al. Intra- and interrater agreement with cumulative defect curves. J Glaucoma 1997;6:117-22.
20. Zeyen T, Roche M, Brigatti L, et al. Formulas for conversion between Octopus and Humphrey threshold values and indices. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1995;233:627-34.
21. Heijl A, Bengtsson B, Lindgren G. Visual field progression in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 1998;82:1097-8.
22. Viswanathan AC, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA. Early detection of visual field progression in glaucoma: a comparison of PROGRESSOR and STATPAC 2. Br J Ophthalmol 1997;81:1037-42.
23. Carrillo MM, Artes PH, Nicolela MT, et al. Effect of cataract extraction on the visual fields of patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2005;123:929-32.
24. Rehman Siddiqui MA, Khairy HA, Azuara-Blanco A. Effect of cataract extraction on SITA perimetry in patients with glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2007;16:205-8.
25. Koucheki B, Nouri-Mahdavi K, Patel G, Gaasterland D, et al. Visual field changes after cataract extraction: the AGIS experience. Am J Ophthalmol 2004;138:1022-8.