Discus: Investigating subjective judgment of optic disc damage

Optometry and Vision Science

Volumn 88, Issue 1, 2011, Pages

  Denniss, Jonathan ^a,b   Echendu, Damian ^a   Henson, David B ^a,b   Artes, Paul H ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b MANCHESTER ROYAL EYE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

diagnostic performance; Glaucoma; optic disc; sensitivity; specificity

Indexed keywords

DIAGNOSTIC PERFORMANCE; GLAUCOMA; OPTIC DISC; SENSITIVITY; SPECIFICITY;

OPHTHALMOLOGY;

DAMAGE DETECTION;

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER PROGRAM; EVALUATION; EXPERT WITNESS; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; INTRAOCULAR HYPERTENSION; OPTIC DISK; PATHOLOGY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD; VISUAL FIELD;

DIAGNOSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; EXPERT TESTIMONY; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; OCULAR HYPERTENSION; OPTIC DISK; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SOFTWARE; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 78651487560     PISSN: 10405488     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181fc30d2     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Lin SC, Singh K, Jampel HD, Hodapp EA, Smith SD, Francis BA, Dueker DK, Fechtner RD, Samples JS, Schuman JS, Minckler DS. Optic nerve head and retinal nerve fiber layer analysis: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 2007;114: 1937-49.
2. Fingeret M, Medeiros FA, Susanna R Jr, Weinreb RN. Five rules to evaluate the optic disc and retinal nerve fiber layer for glaucoma. Optometry 2005;76:661-8.
3. Susanna R Jr, Vessani RM. New findings in the evaluation of the optic disc in glaucoma diagnosis. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2007;18:122-8.
4. Broadway DC, Nicolela MT, Drance SM. Optic disk appearances in primary open-angle glaucoma. Surv Ophthalmol 1999;43(Suppl 1):S223-43.
5. Caprioli J. Clinical evaluation of the optic nerve in glaucoma. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 1994;92:589-641.
6. Jonas JB, Budde WM, Panda-Jonas S. Ophthalmoscopic evaluation of the optic nerve head. Surv Ophthalmol 1999;43:293-320.
7. Weinreb RN, Khaw PT. Primary open-angle glaucoma. Lancet 2004; 363:1711-20.
8. Garway-Heath DF. Early diagnosis in glaucoma. Prog Brain Res 2008;173:47-57.
9. Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Brandt JD, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, Johnson CA, Keltner JL, Miller JP, Parrish RK II, Wilson MR, Kass MA. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120:714-20.
10. Keltner JL, Johnson CA, Anderson DR, Levine RA, Fan J, Cello KE, Quigley HA, Budenz DL, Parrish RK, Kass MA, Gordon MO. The association between glaucomatous visual fields and optic nerve head features in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Ophthalmology 2006;113:1603-12.
11. Miglior S, Pfeiffer N, Torri V, Zeyen T, Cunha-Vaz J, Adamsons I. Predictive factors for open-angle glaucoma among patients with ocular hypertension in the European Glaucoma Prevention Study. Ophthalmology 2007;114:3-9.
12. Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A. Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 1982.
13. Ihaka R, Gentleman R. R: a language for data analysis and graphics. J Computational Graphical Stat 1996;5:299-314.
14. Sing T, Sander O, Beerenwinkel N, Lengauer T. ROCR: visualizing classifier performance in R. Bioinformatics 2005;21:3940-1.
15. Lichter PR. Variability of expert observers in evaluating the optic disc. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 1977;74:532-72.
16. Zangwill LM, Bowd C, Weinreb RN. Evaluating the optic disc and retinal nerve fiber layer in glaucoma. II: optical image analysis. Semin Ophthalmol 2000;15:206-20.
17. Mowatt G, Burr JM, Cook JA, Siddiqui MA, Ramsay C, Fraser C, Azuara-Blanco A, Deeks JJ. Screening tests for detecting open-angle glaucoma: systematic review and meta-analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008;49:5373-85.
18. Tielsch JM, Katz J, Quigley HA, Miller NR, Sommer A. Intraobserver and interobserver agreement in measurement of optic disc characteristics. Ophthalmology 1988;95:350-6.
19. Nicolela MT, Drance SM, Broadway DC, Chauhan BC, McCormick TA, LeBlanc RP. Agreement among clinicians in the recognition of patterns of optic disk damage in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2001;132:836-44.
20. Spalding JM, Litwak AB, Shufelt CL. Optic nerve evaluation among optometrists. Optom Vis Sci 2000;77:446-52.
21. Harper R, Reeves B, Smith G. Observer variability in optic disc assessment: implications for glaucoma shared care. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2000;20:265-73.
22. Harper R, Radi N, Reeves BC, Fenerty C, Spencer AF, Batterbury M. Agreement between ophthalmologists and optometrists in optic disc assessment: training implications for glaucoma co-management. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2001;239:342-50.
23. Spry PG, Spencer IC, Sparrow JM, Peters TJ, Brookes ST, Gray S, Baker I, Furber JE, Easty DL. The Bristol Shared Care Glaucoma Study: reliability of community optometric and hospital eye service test measures. Br J Ophthalmol 1999;83:707-12.
24. Abrams LS, Scott IU, Spaeth GL, Quigley HA, Varma R. Agreement among optometrists, ophthalmologists, and residents in evaluating the optic disc for glaucoma. Ophthalmology 1994;101:1662-7.
25. Varma R, Steinmann WC, Scott IU. Expert agreement in evaluating the optic disc for glaucoma. Ophthalmology 1992;99:215-21.
26. Azuara-Blanco A, Katz LJ, Spaeth GL, Vernon SA, Spencer F, Lanzl IM. Clinical agreement among glaucoma experts in the detection of glaucomatous changes of the optic disk using simultaneous stereoscopic photographs. Am J Ophthalmol 2003;136:949-50.
27. Sung VC, Bhan A, Vernon SA. Agreement in assessing optic discs with a digital stereoscopic optic disc camera (DISCAM) and Heidelberg retina tomograph. Br J Ophthalmol 2002;86:196-202.
28. Anderson RS. The psychophysics of glaucoma: improving the structure/function relationship. Prog Retin Eye Res 2006;25:79-97.
29. Garway-Heath DF, Holder GE, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA. Relationship between electrophysiological, psychophysical, and anatomical measurements in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002;43: 2213-20.
30. Johnson CA, Cioffi GA, Liebmann JR, Sample PA, Zangwill LM, Weinreb RN. The relationship between structural and functional alterations in glaucoma: a review. Semin Ophthalmol 2000;15: 221-33.
31. Harwerth RS, Quigley HA. Visual field defects and retinal ganglion cell losses in patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2006;124:853-9.
32. Caprioli J. Correlation of visual function with optic nerve and nerve fiber layer structure in glaucoma. Surv Ophthalmol 1989;33(Suppl): 319-30.
33. Caprioli J, Miller JM. Correlation of structure and function in glaucoma. Quantitative measurements of disc and field. Ophthalmology 1988;95:723-7.
34. Sharma P, Sample PA, Zangwill LM, Schuman JS. Diagnostic tools for glaucoma detection and management. Surv Ophthalmol 2008; 53(Suppl 1):S17-32.
35. Deleon-Ortega JE, Arthur SN, McGwin G Jr, Xie A, Monheit BE, Girkin CA. Discrimination between glaucomatous and nonglauco-matous eyes using quantitative imaging devices and subjective optic nerve head assessment. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006;47:3374-80.
36. Mardin CY, Junemann AG. The diagnostic value of optic nerve imaging in early glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2001;12:100-4.
37. Greaney MJ, Hoffman DC, Garway-Heath DF, Nakla M, Coleman AL, Caprioli J. Comparison of optic nerve imaging methods to distinguish normal eyes from those with glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002;43:140-5.
38. Harper R, Reeves B. The sensitivity and specificity of direct ophthal-moscopic optic disc assessment in screening for glaucoma: a multi-variate analysis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2000;238:949-55.
39. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2004;140:189-202.
40. Medeiros FA, Ng D, Zangwill LM, Sample PA, Bowd C, Weinreb RN. The effects of study design and spectrum bias on the evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007;48:214-22.
41. Harper R, Henson D, Reeves BC. Appraising evaluations of screening/diagnostic tests: the importance of the study populations. Br J Ophthalmol 2000;84:1198-202.
42. Hanley JA. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) methodology: the state of the art. Crit Rev Diagn Imaging 1989;29:307-35.
43. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982;143:29-36.
44. Svensson E. A coefficient of agreement adjusted for bias in paired ordered categorical data. Biometrical J 1997;39:643-57. (Pubitemid 127371969)
45. Fleiss JL. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull 1971;76:378-82. Available at: http://www.psych.umn.edu/faculty/waller/ classes/meas08/Readings/Fleiss1971.pdf Accessed August 25, 2010.
46. Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV. High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 1990;43:543-9.
47. Morgan JE, Sheen NJ, North RV, Choong Y, Ansari E. Digital imaging of the optic nerve head: monoscopic and stereoscopic analysis. Br J Ophthalmol 2005;89:879-84. (Pubitemid 40904814)
48. Hrynchak P, Hutchings N, Jones D, Simpson T. A comparison of cup-to-disc ratio measurement in normal subjects using optical coherence tomography image analysis of the optic nerve head and stereo fundus biomicroscopy. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2004;24:543-50.
49. Parkin B, Shuttleworth G, Costen M, Davison C. A comparison of stereoscopic and monoscopic evaluation of optic disc topography using a digital optic disc stereo camera. Br J Ophthalmol 2001;85: 1347-51.
50. Vingrys AJ, Helfrich KA, Smith G. The role that binocular vision and stereopsis have in evaluating fundus features. Optom Vis Sci 1994; 71:508-15.
51. Rumsey KE, Rumsey JM, Leach NE. Monocular vs. stereoscopic measurement of cup-to-disc ratios. Optom Vis Sci 1990;67:546-50.
52. Harasymowycz P, Davis B, Xu G, Myers J, Bayer A, Spaeth GL. The use of RADAAR (ratio of rim area to disc area asymmetry) in detecting glaucoma and its severity. Can J Ophthalmol 2004;39:240-4.
53. Lord FM. Applications of Item Response Theoryto Practical Testing Problems. Hillsdale, NJ: L Erlbaum Associates, 1980.