Screening for glaucoma with Moorfields regression analysis and glaucoma probability score in confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy

Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology

Volumn 46, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 254-260

  Kamdeu Fansi, Alvine A ^a   Agoumi, Younes ^a   Harasymowycz, Paul J ^a  

^a MAISONNEUVE ROSEMONT HOSPITAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA PROBABILITY SCORE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MOORFIELDS REGRESSION ANALYSIS; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OPEN ANGLE GLAUCOMA; POPULATION RESEARCH; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROBABILITY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SCANNING LASER OPHTHALMOSCOPY; SCORING SYSTEM; SCREENING; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84455211506     PISSN: 00084182     EISSN: 17153360     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcjo.2011.05.005     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Quigley HA. Number of people with glaucoma worldwide. Br J Ophthalmol. 1996;80:389-93. (Pubitemid 26158268)
2. Quigley HA, Broman AT. The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90:262-7. (Pubitemid 43325451)
3. Klein BE, Klein R, Sponsel WE, et al. Prevalence of glaucoma: The Beaver Dam Eye Study. Ophthalmology. 1992;99:1499-504.
4. Mitchell P, Smith W, Attebo K, et al. Prevalence of open-angle glaucoma in Australia. The Blue Mountains Eye Study. Ophthalmology 1996;103:1661-9. (Pubitemid 26357144)
5. Tielsch JM, Katz J, Singh K, et al. A population-based evaluation of glaucoma screening: the Baltimore Eye Survey. Am J Epidemiol. 1991;134:1102-10.
6. Wilson JM, Jungner YG. [Principles and practice of mass screening for disease]. Bol Oficina Sanit Panam. 1968;65:281-393.
7. Harasymowycz PJ, Papamatheakis DG, Fansi AK, et al. 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;112:2164-71. (Pubitemid 41720996)
8. Zelefsky JR, Harizman N, Mora R, et al. Assessment of a race-specific normative HRT-III database to differentiate glaucomatous from normal eyes. J Glaucoma. 2006;15:548-51. (Pubitemid 44760331)
9. Harizman N, Zelefsky JR, Ilitchev E, et al. Detection of glaucoma using operator-dependent versus operator-independent classification in the Heidelberg retinal tomograph-III. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90:1390-2. (Pubitemid 44702067)
10. Bayer A, Harasymowycz P, Henderer JD, et al. Validity of a new disk grading scale for estimating glaucomatous damage: correlation with visual field damage. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;133:758-63. (Pubitemid 34580622)
11. Gardiner SK, Anderson DR, Fingeret M, et al. Evaluation of decision rules for frequency-doubling technology screening tests. Optom Vis Sci. 2006;83:432-7.
12. Edwards JD, De Leon-Ortega J, Bearden WH, et al. Is reading disability likely to interfere with glaucoma screening of adults using frequencydoubling technology perimetry? Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;135: 816-20. (Pubitemid 36677399)
13. Ferreras A, Pablo LE, Pajarín AB, et al. Diagnostic ability of the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph 3 for glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;145: 354-59.
14. Ferreras A, Pajarín AB, Polo V, et al. Diagnostic ability of Heidelberg Retina Tomograph 3 classifications: glaucoma probability score versus Moorfields regression analysis. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:1981-7.
15. Medved N, Cvenkel B. Diagnostic accuracy of the Moorfields Regression Analysis using the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph in glaucoma patients with visual field defects. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2007;17:216-22. (Pubitemid 46918108)
16. Moreno-Montanes J, Antón A, García N, et al. Glaucoma probability score vs Moorfields classification in normal, ocular hypertensive, and glaucomatous eyes. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;145:360-8.
17. Kim TW, Zangwill LM, Bowd C, et al. Retinal nerve fiber layer damage as assessed by optical coherence tomography in eyes with a visual field defect detected by frequency doubling technology perimetry but not by standard automated perimetry. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:1053-7. (Pubitemid 46829366)
18. Ohkubo S, Takeda H, Higashide T, et al. A pilot study to detect glaucoma with confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy compared with nonmydriatic stereoscopic photography in a community health screening. J Glaucoma. 2007;16:531-8. (Pubitemid 47415209)
19. Danesh-Meyer HV, Gaskin BJ, Jayusundera T, et al. Comparison of disc damage likelihood scale, cup to disc ratio, and Heidelberg retina tomograph in the diagnosis of glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90:437-41.
20. Spaeth GL, Henderer J, Liu C, et al. The disc damage likelihood scale: reproducibility of a new method of estimating the amount of optic nerve damage caused by glaucoma. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2002;100:181-5; discussion 185-6.
21. Healey PR, Mitchell P. Optic disk size in open-angle glaucoma: the Blue Mountains Eye Study. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999;128:515-7. (Pubitemid 29479333)
22. Bayer AU, Erb C. Short wavelength automated perimetry, frequency doubling technology perimetry, and pattern electroretinography for prediction of progressive glaucomatous standard visual field defects. Ophthalmology. 2002;109:1009-17. (Pubitemid 34465239)
23. Kondo Y, Yamamoto T, Sato Y, et al. A frequency-doubling perimetric study in normal-tension glaucoma with hemifield defect. J Glaucoma. 1998;7:261-5. (Pubitemid 29149819)
24. Medeiros FA, Sample PA, Weinreb RN. Frequency doubling technology perimetry abnormalities as predictors of glaucomatous visual field loss. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;137:863-71. (Pubitemid 38582039)
25. Ford BA, Artes PH, McCormick TA, et al. Comparison of data analysis tools for detection of glaucoma with the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:1145-50. (Pubitemid 36676646)
26. Miglior S, Guareschi M, Albe= E, et al. Detection of glaucomatous visual field changes using the Moorfields regression analysis of the Heidelberg retina tomograph. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;136:26-33. (Pubitemid 36794491)
27. Iester M, Mikelberg FS, Courtright P, et al. Interobserver variability of optic disk variables measured by confocal scanning laser tomography.Am J Ophthalmol. 2001;132:57-62. (Pubitemid 32600890)
28. Breusegem C, Fieuws S, Stalmans I, et al. Variability of the standard reference height and its influence on the stereometric parameters of the Heidelberg retina tomograph 3. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:4881-5.