The relationship between variability and sensitivity in large-scale longitudinal visual field data

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 53, Issue 10, 2012, Pages 5985-5990

  Russell, Richard A ^a,b   Crabb, David P ^a   Malik, Rizwan ^b   Garway Heath, David F ^a,b  

^a CITY UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b MOORFIELDS EYE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; FOLLOW UP; GLAUCOMA; HETEROSCEDASTICITY; HUMAN; LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION; TEST RETEST RELIABILITY; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL FIELD VARIABILITY; VISUAL THRESHOLD;

AGED; ALGORITHMS; DISEASE PROGRESSION; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SENSORY THRESHOLDS; VISION DISORDERS; VISUAL FIELD TESTS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 84866091976     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: 15525783     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.12-10428     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Chauhan BC, Tompkins JD, LeBlanc RP, McCormick TA. Characteristics of frequency-of-seeing curves in normal subjects, patients with suspected glaucoma, and patients with glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1993;34:3534-3540.
2. Henson DB, Chaudry S, Artes PH, Faragher EB, Ansons A. Response variability in the visual field: comparison of optic neuritis, glaucoma, ocular hypertension, and normal eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:417-421.
3. Spry PG, Johnson CA, McKendrick AM, Turpin A. Variability components of standard automated perimetry and frequency-doubling technology perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42:1404-1410.
4. Wall M, Woodward KR, Doyle CK, Artes PH. Repeatability of automated perimetry: a comparison between standard auto-mated perimetry with stimulus size III and V, matrix, and motion perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50:974-979.
5. Piltz JR, Starita RJ. Test-retest variability in glaucomatous visual fields. Am J Ophthalmol. 1990;109:109-111.
6. Flammer J, Drance SM, Zulauf M. Differential light threshold. Short- and long-term fluctuation in patients with glaucoma, normal controls, and patients with suspected glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1984;102:704-706.
7. Heijl A, Lindgren A, Lindgren G. Test-retest variability in glaucomatous visual fields. Am J Ophthalmol. 1989;108:130-135.
8. Wall M, Johnson CA, Kutzko KE, Nguyen R, Brito C, Keltner JL. Long- and short-term variability of automated perimetry results in patients with optic neuritis and healthy subjects. Arch Ophthalmol. 1998;116:53-61.
9. 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.
10. Artes PH, Chauhan BC. Longitudinal changes in the visual field and optic disc in glaucoma. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2005;24:333-354.
11. Artes PH, Hutchison DM, Nicolela MT, LeBlanc RP, Chauhan BC. Threshold and variability properties of matrix frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:2451-2457.
12. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. False-negative responses in glaucoma perimetry: indicators of patient performance or test reliability? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:2201-2204.
13. Heijl A, Bengtsson B. The effect of perimetric experience in patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1996;114:19-22.
14. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J. The effect of perimetric experience in normal subjects. Arch Ophthalmol. 1989;107: 81-86.
15. Bland M. An Introduction to Medical Statistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000.
16. White H. A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Economet-rica. 1980;48:817-838.
17. Tobin J. Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables. Econometrica. 1958;26:24-36.
18. Russell RA, Crabb DP. On alternative methods for measuring visual field decay: Tobit linear regression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 52:9539-9540.
19. Team. RDC. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2010.
20. Holmin C, Krakau CE. Variability of glaucomatous visual field defects in computerized perimetry. Albrecht Von Graefes Arch Klin Exp Ophthalmol. 1979;210:235-250.
21. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J. Normal variability of static perimetric threshold values across the central visual field. Arch Ophthalmol. 1987;105:1544-1549.
22. Weber J, Rau S. The properties of perimetric thresholds in normal and glaucomatous eyes. GerJ Ophthalmol. 1992;1:79-85.
23. Wall M, Kutzko KE, Chauhan BC. Variability in patients with glaucomatous visual field damage is reduced using size V stimuli. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997;38:426-435.
24. Chauhan BC, Johnson CA. Test-retest variability of frequency-doubling perimetry and conventional perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal subjects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40:648-656.
25. McNaught AI, Crabb DP, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA. Modelling series of visual fields to detect progression in normal-tension glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1995;233:750-755.
26. Bengtsson B, Patella VM, Heijl A. Prediction of glaucomatous visual field loss by extrapolation of linear trends. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127:1610-1615.
27. Nouri-Mandavi K, Hoffman D, Coleman AL, et al. Predictive factors for glaucomatous visual field progression in the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study. Ophthalmology. 2004;111:1627-1635.
28. Ahrlich KG, De Moraes CG, Teng CC, et al. Visual field progression differences between normal-tension and exfolia-tive high-tension glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010; 51:1458-1463.
29. Manassakorn A, Nouri-Mandavi K, Koucheki B, Law SK, Caprioli J. Pointwise linear regression analysis for detection of visual field progression with absolute versus corrected threshold sensitivities. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:2896-2903.
30. Gardiner SK, Crabb DP. Examination of different pointwise linear regression methods for determining visual field pro-gression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:1400-1407.
31. Gardiner SK, Demirel S, Johnson CA. Is there evidence for continued learning over multiple years in perimetry? Optom Vis Sci. 2008;85:1043-1048.
32. Huber P. The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under nonstandard conditions. Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability. 1967;1:221-233.
33. Caprioli J, Mock D, Bitrian E, et al. A method to measure and predict rates of regional visual field decay in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52:4765-4773.
34. Gardiner SK, Crabb DP. Frequency of testing for detecting visual field progression. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86:560-564.
35. Turpin A, McKendrick AM, Johnson CA, Vingrys AJ. Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from full threshold, ZEST, and SITA-like strategies, as determined by computer simula-tion. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:4787-4795.
36. Turpin A, Jankovic D, McKendrick AM. Retesting visual fields: utilizing prior information to decrease test-retest variability in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48:1627-1634.