Role of visual field reliability indices in ruling out glaucoma

JAMA Ophthalmology

Volumn 133, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 40-44

  Rao, Harsha L ^a   Yadav, Ravi K ^a   Begum, Viquar U ^a   Addepalli, Uday K ^a   Choudhari, Nikhil S ^a   Senthil, Sirisha ^a   Garudadri, Chandra S ^a  

^a L V PRASAD EYE INSTITUTE   (India)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; EYE CARE; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FIXATION FAILURE; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OPHTHALMOLOGIST; OPTIC DISK; PHOTOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; VISUAL FIELD; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS INDICATOR; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MALE; OCULAR HYPERTENSION; OCULOPLETHYSMOGRAPHY; OPTIC NERVE DISEASES; PATHOLOGY; PERIMETRY; PHYSIOLOGY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARDS; VISUAL ACUITY;

ADULT; ALGORITHMS; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OCULAR HYPERTENSION; OPTIC DISK; OPTIC NERVE DISEASES; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TONOMETRY, OCULAR; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL FIELD TESTS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 84920973702     PISSN: 21686165     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.3609     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Anderson DR, Patella VM. Automated Static Perimetry. 2nd ed. St Louis, MO: Mosby; 1999.
2. Heijl A, Patella VM, Bengtsson B. The Field Analyzer Primer: Effective Perimetry. 4th ed. Dublin, CA: Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc; 2012.
3. Katz J, Sommer A. Reliability indexes of automated perimetric tests. Arch Ophthalmol. 1988;106(9):1252-1254.
4. Katz J, Sommer A. Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss: the effect of patient reliability. Ophthalmology. 1990;97(8):1032-1037.
5. Katz J, Sommer A, Witt K. Reliability of visual field results over repeated testing. Ophthalmology. 1991;98(1):70-75.
6. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. False-negative responses in glaucoma perimetry: indicators of patient performance or test reliability? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41(8):2201-2204.
7. Bengtsson B, Olsson J, Heijl A, Rootzén H. A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry, SITA. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1997;75(4):368-375.
8. Olsson J, Bengtsson B, Heijl A, Rootzén H. An improved method to estimate frequency of false positive answers in computerized perimetry. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1997;75(2):181-183.
9. Reynolds M, Stewart WC, Sutherland S. Factors that influence the prevalence of positive catch trials in glaucoma patients. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1990;228(4):338-341.
10. Johnson CA, Nelson-Quigg JM. A prospective three-year study of response properties of normal subjects and patients during automated perimetry. Ophthalmology. 1993;100(2):269-274.
11. Bickler-Bluth M, Trick GL, Kolker AE, Cooper DG. Assessing the utility of reliability indices for automated visual fields: testing ocular hypertensives. Ophthalmology. 1989;96(5):616-619.
12. Nelson-Quigg JM, Twelker JD, Johnson CA. Response properties of normal observers and patients during automated perimetry. Arch Ophthalmol. 1989;107(11):1612-1615.
13. Varma R, Steinmann WC, Scott IU. Expert agreement in evaluating the optic disc for glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1992;99(2):215-221.
14. Parkin B, Shuttleworth G, Costen M, Davison C. A comparison of stereoscopic and monoscopic evaluation of optic disc topography using a digital optic disc stereo camera. Br J Ophthalmol. 2001;85 (11):1347-1351.
15. Medeiros FA, Ng D, Zangwill LM, Sample PA, Bowd C, Weinreb RN. The effects of study design and spectrum bias on the evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48(1):214-222.
16. Rao HL, Kumbar T, Addepalli UK, et al. Effect of spectrum bias on the diagnostic accuracy of spectral-domain optical coherence tomography in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53(2):1058-1065.
17. Rao HL, Addepalli UK, Chaudhary S, et al. Ability of different scanning protocols of spectral domain optical coherence tomography to diagnose preperimetric glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54(12):7252-7257.
18. Rao HL, Addepalli UK, Yadav RK, Senthil S, Choudhari NS, Garudadri CS. Effect of scan quality on diagnostic accuracy of spectral-domain optical coherence tomography in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;157(3):719-727, e1.
19. Rao HL, Yadav RK, Addepalli UK, et al. Retinal nerve fiber layer evaluation of spectral domain optical coherence tomograph and scanning laser polarimeter to diagnose glaucoma. Eye (Lond). 2014;28(6):654-661.
20. Begum VU, Jonnadula GB, Yadav RK, et al. Scanning the macula for detecting glaucoma. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2014;62(1):82-87.