New insights into measurement variability in glaucomatous visual fields from computer modelling

PLoS ONE

Volumn 8, Issue 12, 2013, Pages

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

^a CITY UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b MOORFIELDS EYE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGED; COMPUTER SIMULATION; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, THEORETICAL; VISUAL FIELD TESTS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 84893560473     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083595     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Kingman S (2004) Glaucoma is second leading cause of blindness globally. Bull World Health Organ 82: 887-888.
2. Quigley HA (1996) Number of people with glaucoma worldwide. Br J Ophthalmol 80: 389-393.
3. Ramulu P (2009) Glaucoma and disability: which tasks are affected, and at what stage of disease? Curr Opin Ophthalmol 20: 92-98.
4. McKean-Cowdin R, Wang Y, Wu J, Azen SP, Varma R (2008) Impact of visual field loss on health-related quality of life in glaucoma: the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Ophthalmology 115: 941-948 e941.
5. Murata H, Hirasawa H, Aoyama Y, Sugisaki K, Araie M, et al. (2013) Identifying areas of the visual field important for quality of life in patients with glaucoma. PLoS One 8: e58695.
6. Chauhan BC, Tompkins JD, LeBlanc RP, McCormick TA (1993) Characteristics of frequency-of-seeing curves in normal subjects, patients with suspected glaucoma, and patients with glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 34: 3534-3540. (Pubitemid 24011989)
7. Henson DB, Chaudry S, Artes PH, Faragher EB, Ansons A (2000) Response variability in the visual field: comparison of optic neuritis, glaucoma, ocular hypertension, and normal eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41: 417-421. (Pubitemid 30080444)
8. Spry PG, Johnson CA, McKendrick AM, Turpin A (2001) Variability components of standard automated perimetry and frequency-doubling technology perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 42: 1404-1410. (Pubitemid 32381988)
9. Wall M, Woodward KR, Doyle CK, Artes PH (2009) Repeatability of automated perimetry: a comparison between standard automated perimetry with stimulus size III and V, matrix, and motion perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 50: 974-979.
10. Piltz JR, Starita RJ (1990) Test-retest variability in glaucomatous visual fields. Am J Ophthalmol 109: 109-111.
11. Flammer J, Drance SM, Zulauf M (1984) Differential light threshold. Short- and long-term fluctuation in patients with glaucoma, normal controls, and patients with suspected glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 102: 704-706. (Pubitemid 14138703)
12. Heijl A, Lindgren A, Lindgren G (1989) Test-retest variability in glaucomatous visual fields. Am J Ophthalmol 108: 130-135. (Pubitemid 19197944)
13. Wall M, Johnson CA, Kutzko KE, Nguyen R, Brito C, et al. (1998) Long- and short-term variability of automated perimetry results in patients with optic neuritis and healthy subjects. Arch Ophthalmol 116: 53-61. (Pubitemid 28098894)
14. Artes PH, Iwase A, Ohno Y, Kitazawa Y, Chauhan BC (2002) Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from Full Threshold, SITA Standard, and SITA Fast strategies. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 43: 2654-2659. (Pubitemid 34809456)
15. Artes PH, Chauhan BC (2005) Longitudinal changes in the visual field and optic disc in glaucoma. Prog Retin Eye Res 24: 333-354. (Pubitemid 40238668)
16. Artes PH, Hutchison DM, Nicolela MT, LeBlanc RP, Chauhan BC (2005) Threshold and variability properties of matrix frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 46: 2451-2457. (Pubitemid 43119493)
17. Chauhan BC, Garway-Heath DF, Goni FJ, Rossetti L, Bengtsson B, et al. (2008) Practical recommendations for measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 92: 569-573. (Pubitemid 351497993)
18. Gardiner SK, Crabb DP (2002) Frequency of testing for detecting visual field progression. Br J Ophthalmol 86: 560-564. (Pubitemid 34454504)
19. Shapiro LR, Johnson CA (1990) Quantitative evaluation of manual kinetic perimetry using computer simulation. Appl Opt 29: 1445-1450.
20. Shapiro LR, Johnson CA, Kennedy RL (1989) Kraken: a computer simulation procedure for static, kinetic, supra-threshold and heuristic perimetry.; Heijl A, editor. Amsterdam: Kugler and Ghedini. 431-438 p.
21. Johnson CA, Chauhan BC, Shapiro LR (1992) Properties of staircase procedures for estimating thresholds in automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 33: 2966-2974.
22. Glass E, Schaumberger M, Lachenmayr BJ (1995) Simulations for FASTPAC and the standard 4-2 dB full-threshold strategy of the Humphrey Field Analyzer. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 36: 1847-1854.
23. Spenceley SE, Henson DB (1996) Visual field test simulation and error in threshold estimation. Br J Ophthalmol 80: 304-308. (Pubitemid 26113578)
24. Spry PG, Bates AB, Johnson CA, Chauhan BC (2000) Simulation of longitudinal threshold visual field data. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41: 2192-2200. (Pubitemid 30450992)
25. Turpin A, McKendrick AM, Johnson CA, Vingrys AJ (2003) Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from full threshold, ZEST, and SITA-like strategies, as determined by computer simulation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44: 4787-4795. (Pubitemid 37315292)
26. Gardiner SK, Crabb DP (2002) Examination of different pointwise linear regression methods for determining visual field progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 43: 1400-1407. (Pubitemid 34462637)
27. Russell RA, Crabb DP, Malik R, Garway-Heath DF (2012) The Relationship between Variability and Sensitivity in Large-Scale Longitudinal Visual Field Data. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 53: 5985-5990.
28. Turpin A, Jankovic D, McKendrick AM (2007) Retesting visual fields: utilizing prior information to decrease test-retest variability in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 48: 1627-1634. (Pubitemid 351261347)
29. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J (1987) Normal variability of static perimetric threshold values across the central visual field. Arch Ophthalmol 105: 1544-1549. (Pubitemid 17153246)
30. Artes PH, O'Leary N, Hutchison DM, Heckler L, Sharpe GP, et al. (2011) Properties of the statpac visual field index. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 52: 4030-4038.
31. Wall M, Doyle CK, Zamba KD, Artes P, Johnson CA (2013) The repeatability of mean defect with size III and size V standard automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 54: 1345-1351.
32. Tattersall CL, Vernon SA, Menon GJ (2007) Mean deviation fluctuation in eyes with stable Humphrey 24-2 visual fields. Eye (Lond) 21: 362-366. (Pubitemid 46358799)
33. Tobin J (1958) Estimation of Relationships for Limited Dependent Variables. Econometrica 26: 24-36.
34. Team. RDC (2010) R: A language and environment for statistical computing.: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
35. Cleveland WS, Grosse E (1992) Chapter 8: Local regression models; Chambers JM, Hastie TJ, editors. Pacific Grove, CA: Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole.
36. Hodapp E, Parrish RI, Anderson DR (1993) Clinical Decisions in Glaucoma. St Louis, MO: Mosby.
37. Heijl A, Bengtsson B (1996) The effect of perimetric experience in patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 114: 19-22. (Pubitemid 26026189)
38. Heijl A, Asman P (1995) Pitfalls of automated perimetry in glaucoma diagnosis. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 6: 46-51.
39. Ernest PJ, Schouten JS, Beckers HJ, Hendrikse F, Prins MH, et al. (2012) The evidence base to select a method for assessing glaucomatous visual field progression. Acta Ophthalmol 90: 101-108.
40. Chauhan BC, Johnson CA (1994) Evaluating and optimizing test strategies in automated perimetry 41. -199400321-00010 [pii]. J Glaucoma 3: S73-81. (Pubitemid 24178299)
41. Junoy Montolio FG, Wesselink C, Jansonius NM (2012) Persistence, spatial distribution and implications for progression detection of blind parts of the visual field in glaucoma: a clinical cohort study. PLoS One 7: e41211.
42. Leske MC, Heijl A, Hyman L, Bengtsson B (1999) Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial: design and baseline data. Ophthalmology 106: 2144-2153. (Pubitemid 30194238)
43. Bengtsson B, Olsson J, Heijl A, Rootzen H (1997) A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry, SITA. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 75: 368-375. (Pubitemid 27470462)
44. Junoy Montolio FG, Wesselink C, Gordijn M, Jansonius NM (2012) Factors that influence standard automated perimetry test results in glaucoma: test reliability, technician experience, time of day, and season. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 53: 7010-7017.
45. Jansonius NM (2010) On the accuracy of measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 94: 1404-1405.
46. Nouri-Mahdavi K, Zarei R, Caprioli J (2011) Influence of visual field testing frequency on detection of glaucoma progression with trend analyses. Arch Ophthalmol 129: 1521-1527.