Nonlinear, multilevel mixed-effects approach for modeling longitudinal standard automated perimetry data in glaucoma

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 54, Issue 8, 2013, Pages 5505-5513

  Pathak, Manoj ^a   Demirel, Shaban ^a   Gardiner, Stuart K ^a  

^a DEVERS EYE INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Autocorrelation; Glaucoma; Linear mixed effect; Mean deviation; Nonlinear mixed effect

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BAYESIAN LEARNING; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DISEASE COURSE; FOLLOW UP; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; LEARNING ALGORITHM; NONLINEAR SYSTEM; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK FACTOR; VISUAL FIELD;

AUTOCORRELATION; GLAUCOMA; LINEAR MIXED EFFECT; MEAN DEVIATION; NONLINEAR MIXED EFFECT;

ADULT; AGED; BAYES THEOREM; DISEASE PROGRESSION; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; LINEAR MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; VISUAL FIELD TESTS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 84882798205     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: 15525783     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.13-12236     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Weinreb RN, Khaw PT. Primary and open-angle glaucoma. Lancet. 2004;363:1711-1720.
2. Quigley HA, Broman AT. The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90:262-267.
3. Strouthidis NG, Scott A, Peter NM, Garway-Heath DF. Optic disc and visual field progression in ocular hypertensive subjects: detection rates, specificity and agreement. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:2904-2910.
4. Kass MA, Gordon MO, Gao F, et al. Delaying treatment of ocular hypertension. Arch Ophthalmol. 2010;128:276-287.
5. Gardiner SK, John CA, Demirel S. Factors predicting the rate of functional progression in early and suspected glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:3598-3604.
6. Kulkarni KM, Mayer JR, Lorenzana LL, Myers JS, Spaeth GL. Visual field staging system in glaucoma and the activities of daily living. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;154:445-451.
7. De Moraes CG, Ghobraiel SR, Ritch R, Liebmann JM. Comparison of PROGRESSOR and Glaucoma Progression Analysis 2 to detect visual field progression in treated glaucoma patients. Asia Pacific J Ophthalmol. 2012;1:135-139.
8. Smith SD, Katz J, Quigley HA. Analysis of progressive change in automated visual field in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1996;37:1419-1428.
9. Gardiner SK, Crabb DP. Examination of different pointwise linear regression methods for determining visual field progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:1400-1407.
10. De Moraes CG, Demirel S, Gardiner SK, et al; Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study Group. Rate of visual field progression in eyes with optic disc hemorrhages in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2012;130: 1541-1546.
11. De Moraes CG, Demirel S, Gardiner SK, et al; Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study Group. Effect of treatment on the rate of visual field change in the ocular hypertension treatment study observation group. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:1704-1709.
12. Heijl A, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Leske MC; Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial Group. Natural history of open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmol. 2009;116:2271-2276.
13. Russell RA, Crabb DP, Malik R, Garway-Heath DF. The relationship between variability and sensitivity in large-scale longitudinal visual field data. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012; 53:5985-5990.
14. 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.
15. Henson DB, Chaudry S, Artes PH, Faragher EB, Ansons A. Response variability in the visual field: comparison with optic neuritis, glaucoma, ocular hypertension and normal eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:417-421.
16. Leary N, Chauhan BC, Artes PH. Visual field progression in glaucoma: estimating the overall significance of deterioration with permutation analyses of pointwise linear regression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:6776-6784.
17. Garway-Heath DF, Caprioli J, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA. Scaling the hill of vision: the physiological relationship between light sensitivity and ganglion cell numbers. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:1774-1782.
18. Hood DC, Kardon RH. A framework for comparing structural and functional measures of glaucomatous damage. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2007;26:688-710.
19. Harwerth RS, Wheat JL, Fredette MJ, Anderson DR. Linking structure and function in glaucoma. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2010; 29:249-271.
20. 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. 2000;120:714-720, 829-830.
21. Bonomi L, Marchini G, Marraffa M, Bernardi P, Morbio R, Varotto A. Vascular risk factors for primary open angle glaucoma: the Egna-Neumarkt Study. Ophthalmology. 2000; 107:1287-1293.
22. Broadway DC, Drance SM. Glaucoma and vasospasm. Br J Ophthalmol. 1998;82:862-870.
23. Drance S, Anderson DR, Schulzer M. Risk factors for progression of visual field abnormalities in normal-tension glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2001;131:699-708.
24. Leske MC, Connell AM, Wu SY, Hyman LG, Schachat AP. Risk factors for open-angle glaucoma: the Barbados Eye Study. Arch Ophthalmol. 1995;113:918-924.
25. Gardiner SK, Johnson CA, Cioffi GA. Evaluation of the structure-function relationship in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:3712-3717.
26. Spry P, Johnson C, Mansberger S, Cioffi G. Psychophysical investigation of ganglion cell loss in early glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2005;14:11-18.
27. Chopra V, Varma R, Francis BA, Wu J, Torres M, Azen SP. Type 2 diabetes mellitus and the risk of open-angle glaucoma: the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:227-232.
28. Anderson D, Patella V. Automated Static Perimetry. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 1999.
29. Bengtsson B, Olsson J, Heijl A, Rootzén H. A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry, SITA. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1997;75:368-375.
30. Medeiros FA, Weinreb RN, Moore G, Liebmann JM, Girkin CA, Zangwill LM. Integrating event-and trend-based analyses to improve detection of glaucomatous visual field progression. Ophthalmol. 2012;119:458-467.
31. Demirel S, De Moraes CG, Gardiner SK, et al; Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study Group. The rate of visual field change in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:224-227.
32. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2013. Available at: http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed July 2, 2013.
33. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM. Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-plus. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2000.
34. Piltz JR, Starita RJ. Test-retest variability in glaucomatous visual fields. Am J Ophthalmol. 1990;109:109-111.
35. Shafi A, Swanson WH, Dul MW. Structure and function in patients with glaucomatous defects near fixation. Optom Vis Sci. 2011;88:130-139.
36. Caprioli J, Mock D, Bitrian E, et al. Author response: on alternative methods for measuring visual field decay: Tobit linear regression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:9211-9240.
37. Russell RA, Crabb DP. A method of measuring and predicting rates of regional visual field decay in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52:9539-9540.
38. 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.
39. Gardiner SK, Demirel S, Johnson CA. Is there evidence for continued learning over multiple years in perimetry? Optom Vis Sci. 2008;85:143-148.