Properties of the Statpac visual field index

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 52, Issue 7, 2011, Pages 4030-4038

  Artes, Paul H ^a   O'Leary, Neil ^a   Hutchison, Donna M ^a   Heckler, Lisa ^a   Sharpe, Glen P ^a   Nicolela, Marcelo T ^a   Chauhan, Balwantray C ^a  

^a DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; HUMAN; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEAN DEVIATION; NONLINEAR SYSTEM; OPEN ANGLE GLAUCOMA; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; STATISTICAL PARAMETERS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL FIELD DEFECT; VISUAL FIELD INDEX; AUTOMATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DISEASE COURSE; EVALUATION; GLAUCOMA; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PROBABILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD; VISUAL SYSTEM EXAMINATION;

AGED; AUTOMATION; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES, OPHTHALMOLOGICAL; DISEASE PROGRESSION; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MIDDLE AGED; PROBABILITY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VISUAL FIELD TESTS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 79961031367     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: 15525783     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.10-6905     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J, Asman P. Visual field interpretation with empiric probability maps. Arch Ophthalmol. 1989;107:204-208.
2. Bebie H, Flammer J, Bebie T. The cumulative defect curve: separation of local and diffuse components of visual field damage. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1989;227:9-12.
3. Flammer J. The concept of visual field indices. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1986;224:389-392.
4. Chauhan BC, Drance SM, Douglas GR. The use of visual field indices in detecting changes in the visual field in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1990;31:512-520.
5. Chauhan BC, Garway-Heath DF, Goni FJ, et al. Practical recommendations for measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008;92:569-573.
6. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J, Asman P. On weighted visual field indices. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1992;230:397-400.
7. Funkhouser A, Fankhauser F. The effects of weighting the "mean defect" visual field index according to threshold variability in the central and midperipheral visual field. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1991;229:228-231.
8. Jay JL, Murdoch JR. The rate of visual field loss in untreated primary open angle glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 1993;77:176-178.
9. Anderson DR, Drance SM, Schulzer M. Natural history of normaltension glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2001;108:247-253.
10. Caprioli J. The importance of rates in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;145:191-192.
11. Quigley HA, Tielsch JM, Katz J, Sommer A. Rate of progression in open-angle glaucoma estimated from cross-sectional prevalence of visual field damage. Am J Ophthalmol. 1996;122:355-363.
12. Broman AT, Quigley HA, West SK, et al. Estimating the rate of progressive visual field damage in those with open-angle glaucoma, from cross-sectional data. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:66-76.
13. Heijl A, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Leske MC. Natural history of open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2009;116:2271-2276.
14. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. A visual field index for calculation of glaucoma rate of progression. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;145:343-353.
15. Artes PH, Nicolela MT, LeBlanc RP, Chauhan BC. Visual field progression in glaucoma: total versus pattern deviation analyses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:4600-4606.
16. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J. Normal variability of static perimetric threshold values across the central visual field. Arch Ophthalmol. 1987;105:1544-1549.
17. Ripley B, Thompson M. Regression techniques for the detection of analytical bias. The Analyst. 1987;112:377-383.
18. Venn J. I. On the diagrammatic and mechanical representation of propositions and reasonings. Philosophical Magazine Series 5. 1880;10:1-18.
19. Draper N, Smith H, Pownell E. Applied Regression Analysis. Wiley New York; 1998.
20. Cleveland W. Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots. J Am Stat Assoc. 1979;74:829-836.
21. Koenker R. Quantile Regression: Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2005.
22. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2005.
23. Koenker R. Quantreg: Quantile Regression. R package version 4.53. Available at http://CRAN.R-project.org/package-quantreg. Accessed January 5, 2011.
24. Jampel H, Vitale S, Ding Y, et al. Test-retest variability in structural and functional parameters of glaucoma damage in the glaucoma imaging longitudinal study. J Glaucoma. 2006;15:152-157.
25. Heijl A, Lindgren A, Lindgren G. Test-retest variability in glaucomatous visual fields. Am J Ophthalmol. 1989;108:130-135.
26. Artes PH, Iwase A, Ohno Y, Kitazawa Y, Chauhan BC. Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from Full Threshold, SITA Standard, and SITA Fast strategies. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43: 2654-2659.
27. Carrillo MM, Artes PH, Nicolela MT, LeBlanc RP, Chauhan BC. Effect of cataract extraction on the visual fields of patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123:929-932.
28. Smith SD, Katz J, Quigley HA. Effect of cataract extraction on the results of automated perimetry in glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1997;115:1515-1519.
29. Anctil JL, Anderson DR. Early foveal involvement and generalized depression of the visual field in glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1984;102:363-370.
30. Henson DB, Artes PH, Chauhan BC. Diffuse loss of sensitivity in early glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40:3147-3151.
31. Drance S, Douglas G, Airaksinen P, Schulzer M, Hitchings R. Diffuse visual field loss in chronic open-angle and low-tension glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 1987;104:577-580.
32. Harwerth RS, Crawford ML, Frishman LJ, Viswanathan S, Smith EL III, Carter-Dawson L. Visual field defects and neural losses from experimental glaucoma. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2002;21:91-125.
33. Ramulu P. Glaucoma and visual disability: which task are affected, and at what stage of disease? Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2009;20:92-98.
34. Haymes SA, LeBlanc RP, Nicolela MT, et al. Glaucoma and on-road driving performance. InvestOphthalmolVisSci. 2008;49:3035-3041.
35. Turano KA, Rubin GS, Quigley HA. Mobility performance in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40:2803-2809.
36. Friedman DS, Freeman E, Munoz B, Jampel HD, West SK. Glaucoma and mobility performance: the Salisbury Eye Evaluation Project. Ophthalmology. 2007;114(12):2232-2237.
37. Crabb DP, Smith ND, Rauscher FG, et al. Exploring eye movements in patients with glaucoma when viewing a driving scene. PloS One. 2010;5:e9710.
38. Kotecha A, O'Leary N, Melmoth D, et al. The functional consequences for eye-hand coordination. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50:203-213.
39. Shabana N, Cornilleau-Peres V, Droulez J, et al. Postural stability in primary open angle glaucoma. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2005;33: 264-273.
40. Hassan SE, Geruschat DR, Turano KA. Head movements while crossing streets: effect of vision impairment. Optom Vis Sci. 2005;82:18-26.
41. Nelson P, Aspinall P, O'Brien C. Patients' perception of visual impairment in glaucoma: a pilot study. Br J Ophthalmol. 1999;83: 546-552.
42. Viswanathan AC, McNaught AI, Poinoosawmy D, et al. Severity and stability of glaucoma: patient perception compared with objective measurement. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117:450-454.
43. Gutierrez P, Wilson MR, Johnson C, et al. Influence of glaucomatous visual field loss on health-related quality of life. Arch Ophthalmol. 1997;115:777-784.
44. Owen VM, Crabb DP, White ET, Viswanathan AC, Garway-Heath DF, Hitchings RA. Glaucoma and fitness to drive: using binocular visual fields to predict a milestone to blindness. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:2449-2455.
45. Haymes SA, LeBlanc RP, Nicolela MT, et al. Risk of falls and motor vehicle collisions in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48:1149-1155.
46. Westheimer G. Scaling of visual acuity measurements. Arch Ophthalmol. 1979;97:327.
47. Bengtsson B, Patella V, Heijl A. Prediction of glaucomatous visual field loss by extrapolation of linear trends. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127:1610.
48. McNaught AI, Crabb DP, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA. Visual field progression: Comparison of Humphrey Statpac and pointwise linear regression analysis. Graefes Archive for Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1996;234:411-418.
49. Smith SD, Katz J, Quigley HA. Analysis of progressive change in automated visual fields in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis. Sci. 1996;37:1419-1428.
50. Vesti E, Johnson CA, Chauhan BC. Comparison of different methods for detecting glaucomatous visual field progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis. Sci. 2003;44:3873-3879.
51. Spry PG, Johnson CA. Identification of progressive glaucomatous visual field loss. Surv Ophthalmol. 2002;47:158-173.
52. 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;81:1037-1042.
53. Nouri-Mahdavi K, Brigatti L, Weitzman M, Caprioli J. Comparison of methods to detect visual field progression in glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1997;104:1228-1236.
54. Gardiner SK, Crabb DP. Examination of different pointwise linear regression methods for determining visual field progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis. Sci. 2002;43:1400-1407.