Defining glaucomatous optic neuropathy from a continuous measure of optic nerve damage the optimal cut-off point for risk-factor analysis in population-based epidemiology

Ophthalmic Epidemiology

Volumn 18, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 211-216

  Ramdas, Wishal D ^a   Rizopoulos, Dimitris ^a   Wolfs, Roger C W ^a   Hofman, Albert ^a   De Jong, Paulus T V M ^b,c   Vingerling, Johannes R ^a   Jansonius, Nomdo M ^a,d  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b NETHERLANDS INSTITUTE FOR NEUROSCIENCE   (Netherlands)

^c ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^d UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Bootstrap; Cut off point; Epidemiology; Glaucomatous optic neuropathy; Glaucomatous visual field loss; Heidelberg Retina Tomograph; Misclassification; Percentile; Surrogate

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HEIDELBERG RETINA TOMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OPTIC DISK CUP; OPTIC NERVE DISEASE; POPULATION RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; TOMOGRAPHY; VISUAL FIELD;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; COHORT STUDIES; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NETHERLANDS; OCULAR HYPERTENSION; OPTIC DISK; OPTIC NERVE DISEASES; REFERENCE VALUES; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; TOMOGRAPHY, OPTICAL; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 80053508928     PISSN: 09286586     EISSN: 17445086     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/09286586.2011.595038     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Wolfs RC, Borger PH, Ramrattan RS, et al. Changing views on open-angle glaucoma: definitions and prevalences- The Rotterdam Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000;41(11):3309-3321.
2. Garway-Heath DF, Ruben ST, Viswanathan A, Hitchings RA. Vertical cup/disc ratio in relation to optic disc size: its value in the assessment of the glaucoma suspect. Br J Ophthalmol 1998;82(10):1118-1124. (Pubitemid 28474864)
3. Foster PJ, Oen FT, Machin D, et al. The prevalence of glaucoma in Chinese residents of Singapore: a cross-sectional population survey of the Tanjong Pagar district. Arch Ophthalmol 2000;118(8):1105-1111. (Pubitemid 30643344)
4. Copeland KT, Checkoway H, McMichael AJ, Holbrook RH. Bias due to misclassification in the estimation of relative risk. Am J Epidemiol 1977;105(5):488-495. (Pubitemid 8112070)
5. Ozasa K. The effect of misclassification on evaluating the effectiveness of influenza vaccines. Vaccine 2008;26(50):6462-6465.
6. Choi SC, Clifton GL, Marmarou A, Miller ER. Misclassification and treatment effect on primary outcome measures in clinical trials of severe neurotrauma. J Neurotrauma 2002;19(1):17-22. (Pubitemid 34117093)
7. Lu J, Murray GD, Steyerberg EW, et al. Effects of Glasgow Outcome Scale misclassification on traumatic brain injury clinical trials. J Neurotrauma 2008;25(6):641-651. (Pubitemid 351918443)
8. Prentice RL. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. Stat Med 1989;8(4):431-440. (Pubitemid 19105891)
9. Hofman A, Breteler MM, van Duijn CM, et al. The Rotterdam Study: 2010 objectives and design update. Eur J Epidemiol 2009;24(9):553-572.
10. Skenduli-Bala E, de Voogd S, Wolfs RC, et al. Causes of incident visual field loss in a general elderly population: the Rotterdam study. Arch Ophthalmol 2005;123(2): 233-238. (Pubitemid 40189712)
11. Czudowska MA, Ramdas WD, Wolfs RC, et al. Incidence of glaucomatous visual field loss: a ten-year follow-up from the Rotterdam Study. Ophthalmology 2010;117(9):1705-1712.
12. Dielemans I, Vingerling JR, Hofman A, et al. Reliability of intraocular pressure measurement with the Goldmann applanation tonometer in epidemiological studies. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1994;232(3):141-144. (Pubitemid 24091732)
13. Berger VW. Does the Prentice criterion validate surrogate endpoints? Stat Med 2004;23(10):1571-1578. (Pubitemid 38660409)
14. Efron B. The jackknife, the bootstrap, and other resampling plans: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 1982.
15. Harrell FE. Regression modelling strategies with applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2001.
16. Murphy EA, Abbey H. The normal range - a common misuse. J Chronic Dis 1967;20(2):79-88.
17. Bourne RR, Sukudom P, Foster PJ, et al. Prevalence of glaucoma in Thailand: a population based survey in Rom Klao District, Bangkok. Br J Ophthalmol 2003;87(9):1069-1074. (Pubitemid 37064877)
18. Foster PJ, Buhrmann R, Quigley HA, Johnson GJ. The definition and classification of glaucoma in prevalence surveys. Br J Ophthalmol 2002;86(2):238-242. (Pubitemid 34127552)
19. Ellenberg S, Hamilton JM. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: cancer. Stat Med 1989;8(4):405-413. (Pubitemid 19105888)
20. Wittes J, Lakatos E, Probstfield J. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: cardiovascular diseases. Stat Med 1989;8(4):415-425. (Pubitemid 19105889)
21. Fleming TR, DeMets DL. Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled? Ann Intern Med 1996;125(7):605-613. (Pubitemid 126450094)