Understanding disparities among diagnostic technologies in glaucoma

Archives of Ophthalmology

Volumn 130, Issue 7, 2012, Pages 833-841

  De Moraes, Carlos Gustavo V ^a,b   Liebmann, Jeffrey M ^a,b   Ritch, Robert ^a,c   Hood, Donald C ^d  

^a NEW YORK EYE AND EAR INFIRMARY   (United States)

^b NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c NEW YORK MEDICAL COLLEGE   (United States)

^d Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; EVOKED VISUAL RESPONSE; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; KERATOMETRY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OPTIC NERVE DISEASE; OPTICAL COHERENCE TOMOGRAPHY; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; VISUAL FIELD;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AXONS; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; EVOKED POTENTIALS, VISUAL; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OPTIC DISK; OPTIC NERVE DISEASES; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETINAL GANGLION CELLS; TOMOGRAPHY, OPTICAL COHERENCE; VISION DISORDERS; VISUAL FIELD TESTS; VISUAL FIELDS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84863786292     PISSN: 00039950     EISSN: 15383601     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/archophthalmol.2012.786     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Pagliara MM, Lepore D, Balestrazzi E. The role of OCT in glaucoma management. Prog Brain Res. 2008;173:139-148.
2. Weinreb RN, Zangwill L, Berry CC, Bathija R, Sample PA. Detection of glaucoma with scanning laser polarimetry. Arch Ophthalmol. 1998;116(12):1583- 1589. (Pubitemid 29001953)
3. Boden C, Pascual J, Medeiros FA, Aihara M, Weinreb RN, Sample PA. Relationship of SITA and full-threshold standard perimetry to frequency-doubling technology perimetry in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46(7):2433-2439. (Pubitemid 43119490)
4. Girkin CA, Emdadi A, Sample PA, et al. Short-wavelength automated perimetry and standard perimetry in the detection of progressive optic disc cupping. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118(9):1231-1236.
5. Hood DC, Greenstein VC. Multifocal VEP and ganglion cell damage: applications and limitations for the study of glaucoma. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2003;22(2): 201-251. (Pubitemid 36246533)
6. Medeiros FA, Zangwill LM, Bowd C, Weinreb RN. Comparison of the GDx VCC scanning laser polarimeter, HRT II confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope, and stratus OCT optical coherence tomograph for the detection of glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122(6):827-837. (Pubitemid 38736241)
7. Caprioli J. Correlation of visual function with optic nerve and nerve fiber layer structure in glaucoma. Surv Ophthalmol. 1989;33(suppl):319-330. (Pubitemid 19068622)
8. 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(4):221-233.
9. Girkin CA. Relationship between structure of optic nerve/nerve fiber layer and functional measurements in glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2004;15(2):96-101. (Pubitemid 38457127)
10. Bowd C, Zangwill LM, Medeiros FA, et al. Structure-function relationships using confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy, optical coherence tomography, and scanning laser polarimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47(7):2889-2895. (Pubitemid 351639763)
11. Medeiros FA, Zangwill LM, Bowd C, Sample PA, Weinreb RN. Influence of disease severity and optic disc size on the diagnostic performance of imaging instruments in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47(3):1008-1015. (Pubitemid 46768333)
12. Vessani RM, Moritz R, Batis L, Zagui RB, Bernardoni S, Susanna R. Comparison of quantitative imaging devices and subjective optic nerve head assessment by general ophthalmologists to differentiate normal from glaucomatous eyes. J Glaucoma. 2009;18(3):253-261.
13. Hood DC, Harizman N, Kanadani FN, et al. Retinal nerve fibre thickness measured with optical coherence tomography accurately detects confirmed glaucomatous damage. Br J Ophthalmol. 2007;91(7):905-907. (Pubitemid 47013102)
14. Fortune B, Zhang X, Hood DC, Demirel S, Johnson CA. Normative ranges and specificity of the multifocal VEP. Doc Ophthalmol. 2004;109(1):87-100. (Pubitemid 40012057)
15. Sample PA, Medeiros FA, Racette L, et al. Identifying glaucomatous vision loss with visual-function-specific perimetry in the Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47(8):3381-3389. (Pubitemid 351639701)
16. Fortune B, Demirel S, Zhang X, et al. Comparing multifocal VEP and standard automated perimetry in high-risk ocular hypertension and early glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48(3):1173-1180. (Pubitemid 351261412)
17. Thienprasiddhi P, Greenstein VC, Chu DH, et al. Detecting early functional damage in glaucoma suspect and ocular hypertensive patients with the multifocal VEP technique. J Glaucoma. 2006;15(4):321-327. (Pubitemid 44126908)
18. Hodapp E, Parrish RK, Anderson DR. Clinical Decisions in Glaucoma. St Louis, MO: Mosby; 1993:52-59.
19. Heijl A, Patella VM. Essential Perimetry: The Field Analyzer Primer. Dublin, CA: Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc; 2002:44-89.
20. Artes PH, Chauhan BC, Keltner JL, et al Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study Group. Longitudinal and cross-sectional analyses of visual field progression in participants of the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2010; 128(12):1528-1532.
21. HoodDC, Anderson SC, WallM,Raza AS, Kardon RH.Atest of a linear model of glaucomatous structure-function loss reveals sources of variability in retinal nerve fiber and visual field measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50(9):4254-4266.
22. Hood DC, Kardon RH. A framework for comparing structural and functional measures of glaucomatous damage. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2007;26(6):688-710. (Pubitemid 47615565)
23. Wall M, Johnson CA, Kardon RH, Crabb DP. Use of a continuous probability scale to display visual field damage. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127(6):749-756.
24. Asawaphureekorn S, Zangwill L, Weinreb RN. Ranked-segment distribution curve for interpretation of optic nerve topography. J Glaucoma. 1996;5(2):79-90. (Pubitemid 26139158)
25. Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Brandt JD, et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120(6):714-830.
26. Lalezary M, Medeiros FA, Weinreb RN, et al. Baseline optical coherence tomography predicts the development of glaucomatous change in glaucoma suspects. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;142(4):576-582.
27. Hood DC, Raza AS. Method for comparing visual field defects to local RNFL and RGC damage seen on frequency domain OCT in patients with glaucoma. Biomed Opt Express. 2011;2(5):1097-1105.
28. Kim NR, Lee ES, Seong GJ, Choi EH, Hong S, Kim CY. Spectral-domain optical coherence tomography for detection of localized retinal nerve fiber layer defects in patients with open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2010;128(9):1121-1128.
29. Hood DC, Zhang X, Greenstein VC, et al. An interocular comparison of the multifocal VEP: a possible technique for detecting local damage to the optic nerve. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41(6):1580-1587. (Pubitemid 30261886)