Methodology and reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies of automated perimetry in glaucoma: Evaluation using a standardised approach

Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics

Volumn 35, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 315-323

  Fidalgo, Bruno M R ^a   Crabb, David P ^a   Lawrenson, John G ^a  

^a CITY UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Glaucoma; Methodological quality; Perimetry; Quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy; Standards for the reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies

Indexed keywords

GLAUCOMA; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; PERIMETRY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROCEDURES; PROTOCOL COMPLIANCE; PUBLISHING; STANDARDS;

GLAUCOMA; GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; PUBLISHING; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; VISUAL FIELD TESTS;

EID: 84928237422     PISSN: 02755408     EISSN: 14751313     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/opo.12208     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Quigley HA. The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. Br J Ophthalmol 2006; 90: 262-267.
2. Prior M, Francis JJ, Azuara-Blanco A, Anand N, Burr JM & Glaucoma screening Platform Study group. Why do people present late with advanced glaucoma? A qualitative interview study Br J Ophthalmol 2013; 97: 1574-1578.
3. Jampel HD, Singh K, Lin SC et al. Assessment of visual function in glaucoma: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 2011; 118: 986-1002.
4. Deeks JJ. Systematic reviews in health care: systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ 2001; 323: 157-162.
5. Mowatt G, Burr JM, Cook JA et al. Screening tests for detecting open-angle glaucoma: systematic review and meta-analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008; 49: 5373-5385.
6. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM & Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003; 3: 25.
7. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. Clin Chem 2003; 49: 1-6.
8. Deville WL, Bezemer PD & Bouter LM. Publications on diagnostic test evaluation in family medicine journals: an optimal search strategy. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53: 65-69.
9. Landis JR & Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159-174.
10. Wishart PK. Oculokinetic perimetry compared with Humphrey visual field analysis in the detection of glaucomatous visual field loss. Eye (Lond) 1993; 7: 113-121.
11. Mutlukan E, Damato BE & Jay JL. Clinical evaluation of a multi-fixation campimeter for the detection of glaucomatous visual field loss. Br J Ophthalmol 1993; 77: 332-338.
12. Katz J, Tielsch JM, Quigley HA, Javitt J, Witt K & Sommer A. Automated suprathreshold screening for glaucoma: the Baltimore Eye Survey. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1993; 34: 3271-3277.
13. Adachi M & Shirato S. The usefulness of the Noise-Field Test as a screening method for visual field defects. Jpn J Ophthalmol 1994; 38: 392-399.
14. Christoffersen T, Fors T, Waage S & Holtedahl K. Glaucoma screening with oculokinetic perimetry in general practice: is its specificity acceptable? Eye (Lond) 1995; 9: 36-39.
15. Sponsel WE, Ritch R, Stamper R et al. Prevent Blindness America visual field screening study. The Prevent Blindness America Glaucoma Advisory Committee. Am J Ophthalmol 1995; 120: 699-708.
16. Graham SL, Drance SM, Chauhan BC et al. Comparison of psychophysical and electrophysiological testing in early glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1996; 37: 2651-2662.
17. Huang AS, Smith SD & Quigley HA. The efficacy of the Dicon screening field to detect eyes with glaucomatous field loss by Humphrey threshold testing. J Glaucoma 1998; 7: 158-164.
18. Bosworth CF, Sample PA, Gupta N, Bathija R & Weinreb RN. Motion automated perimetry identifies early glaucomatous field defects. Arch Ophthalmol 1998; 116: 1153-1158.
19. Sim DH & Goh LG. Screening for glaucoma in the Chinese elderly population in Singapore. Singapore Med J 1999; 40: 644-647.
20. Yamada N, Chen PP, Mills RP et al. Screening for glaucoma with frequency-doubling technology and Damato campimetry. Arch Ophthalmol 1999; 117: 1479-1484.
21. Fabré K, Michiels I & Zeyen T. The sensitivity and specificity of TOP, FDP and GDX in screening for early glaucoma. Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol 2000; 275: 17-23.
22. Burnstein Y, Ellish NJ, Magbalon M & Higginbotham EJ. Comparison of frequency doubling perimetry with Humphrey visual field analysis in a glaucoma practice. Am J Ophthalmol 2000; 129: 328-333.
23. Cello KE, Nelson-Quigg JM & Johnson CA. Frequency doubling technology perimetry for detection of glaucomatous visual field loss. Am J Ophthalmol 2000; 129: 314-322.
24. Trible JR, Schultz RO, Robinson JC & Rothe TL. Accuracy of glaucoma detection with frequency-doubling perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol 2000; 129: 740-745.
25. Vitale S, Smith TD, Quigley T et al. Screening performance of functional and structural measurements of neural damage in open-angle glaucoma: a case-control study from the Baltimore Eye Survey. J Glaucoma 2000; 9: 346-356.
26. Paczka JA, Friedman DS, Quigley HA, Barron Y & Vitale S. Diagnostic capabilities of frequency-doubling technology, scanning laser polarimetry, and nerve fiber layer photographs to distinguish glaucomatous damage. Am J Ophthalmol 2001; 131: 188-197.
27. Wadood AC, Azuara-Blanco A, Aspinall P, Taguri A & King AJ. Sensitivity and specificity of frequency-doubling technology, tendency-oriented perimetry, and Humphrey Swedish interactive threshold algorithm-fast perimetry in a glaucoma practice. Am J Ophthalmol 2002; 133: 327-332.
28. Bayer AU, Maag K-P & Erb C. Detection of optic neuropathy in glaucomatous eyes with normal standard visual fields using a test battery of short-wavelength automated perimetry and pattern electroretinography. Ophthalmology 2002; 109: 1350-1361.
29. Horn FK, Wakili N, Jünemann AM & Korth M. Testing for glaucoma with frequency-doubling perimetry in normals, ocular hypertensives, and glaucoma patients. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2002; 240: 658-665.
30. Iwasaki A & Sugita M. Performance of glaucoma mass screening with only a visual field test using frequency-doubling technology perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol 2002; 134: 529-537.
31. Horn FK, Nguyen NX, Mardin CY & Jünemann AG. Combined use of frequency doubling perimetry and polarimetric measurements of retinal nerve fiber layer in glaucoma detection. Am J Ophthalmol 2003; 135: 160-168.
32. Detry-Morel M, Zeyen T, Kestelyn P, Collignon J & Goethals M. Screening for glaucoma in a general population with the non-mydriatic fundus camera and the frequency doubling perimeter. Eur J Ophthalmol 2004; 14: 387-393.
33. Spry PG, Johnson CA, Mansberger SL & Cioffi GA. Psychophysical investigation of ganglion cell loss in early glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2005; 14: 11-9.
34. Brusini P. Probing glaucoma visual damage by rarebit perimetry. Br J Ophthalmol 2005; 89: 180-184.
35. Heeg GP, Blanksma LJ, Hardus PLLJ & Jansonius NM. The Groningen Longitudinal Glaucoma Study. I. Baseline sensitivity and specificity of the frequency doubling perimeter and the GDx nerve fibre analyser. Acta Ophthalmol 2005; 83: 46-52.
36. Mansberger SL, Johnson CA, Cioffi GA et al. Predictive value of Frequency Doubling Technology perimetry for detecting glaucoma in a developing country. J Glaucoma 2005; 14: 128-134.
37. Babalola OE. The motion sensitivity screening test in clinical practice in Abuja, Nigeria: affordable automated perimetry for the third world? Afr J Med Med Sci 2005; 34: 119-124.
38. Robin TA, Müller A, Rait J, Keeffe JE, Taylor HR & Mukesh BN. Performance of community-based glaucoma screening using Frequency Doubling Technology and Heidelberg Retinal Tomography. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2005; 12: 167-178.
39. Fogagnolo P, Mazzolani F, Rossetti L & Orzalesi N. Detecting glaucoma with Frequency Doubling Technology perimetry: a comparison between N-30 and C-20 screening programs. J Glaucoma 2005; 14: 485-491.
40. Matsumoto C, Takada S, Okuyama S, Arimura E, Hashimoto S & Shimomura Y. Automated flicker perimetry in glaucoma using Octopus 311: a comparative study with the Humphrey Matrix. Acta Ophthalmol 2006; 84: 210-215.
41. Brusini P, Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M & Parisi L. Frequency Doubling Technology perimetry with the Humphrey Matrix 30-2 test. J Glaucoma 2006; 15: 77-83.
42. Pierre-Filho P, Schimiti RB, De Vasconcellos JPC & Costa VP. Sensitivity and specificity of Frequency Doubling Technology, tendency-oriented perimetry, SITA Standard and SITA Fast perimetry in perimetrically inexperienced individuals. Acta Ophthalmol 2006; 84: 345-350.
43. North RV, Jones AL, Hunter E, Morgan JE & Wild JM. Evaluation of the high specificity Screening Program (C-20-1) of the Frequency Doubling Technology (FDT) perimeter in clinical practice. Eye (Lond) 2006; 20: 681-687.
44. Gardiner SK, Anderson DR, Fingeret M, McSoley JJ & Johnson CA. Evaluation of decision rules for Frequency Doubling Technology screening tests. Optom Vis Sci 2006; 83: E432-E439.
45. 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: 3381-3389.
46. Iwase A, Tomidokoro A, Araie M, Shirato S, Shimizu H & Kitazawa Y. Performance of Frequency Doubling Technology Perimetry in a population-based prevalence survey of glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2007; 114: 27-32.
47. Leeprechanon N, Giangiacomo A, Fontana H, Hoffman D & Caprioli J. Frequency Doubling Perimetry: comparison with Standard Automated Perimetry to detect glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2007; 143: 263-271.
48. 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: 1173-1180.
49. Kumar S, Giubilato A, Morgan W et al. Glaucoma screening: analysis of conventional and telemedicine-friendly devices. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2007; 35: 237-243.
50. Leeprechanon N, Giaconi JA, Manassakorn A, Hoffman D & Caprioli J. Frequency Doubling perimetry and short-wavelength automated perimetry to detect early glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2007; 114: 931-937.
51. Ferreras A, Polo V, Larrosa JM et al. Can Frequency Doubling Technology and Short-wavelength Automated Perimetries detect visual field defects before Standard Automated Perimetry in patients with preperimetric glaucoma? J Glaucoma 2007; 16: 372-383.
52. Horn FK, Brenning A, Junemann AG & Lausen B. Glaucoma detection with frequency doubling perimetry and short-wavelength perimetry. J Glaucoma 2007; 16 : 363-371.
53. Tóth M, Kothy P, Vargha P & Hollo G. Accuracy of combined GDx-VCC and Matrix FDT in a glaucoma screening trial. J Glaucoma 2007; 16: 462-470.
54. Wang YX, Xu L, Zhang RX & Jonas JB. Frequency-doubling threshold perimetry in predicting glaucoma in a population-based study: The Beijing Eye Study. Arch Ophthalmol 2007; 125: 1402-1406.
55. Spry PGD, Hussin HM & Sparrow JM. Performance of the 24-2-5 Frequency Doubling Technology screening test: a prospective case study. Br J Ophthalmol 2007; 91: 1345-1349.
56. Tafreshi A, Sample PA, Liebmann JM et al. Visual function-specific perimetry to identify glaucomatous visual loss using three different definitions of visual field abnormality. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2009; 50: 1234-1240.
57. Salim S, Netland PA, Fung KH, Smith ME & Aldridge A. Assessment of the Student Sight Savers Program methods for glaucoma screening. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2009; 16: 238-242.
58. Cook C, Cockburn N, van der Merwe J & Ehrlich R. Cataract and glaucoma case detection for Vision 2020 programs in Africa: an evaluation of 6 possible screening tests. J Glaucoma 2009; 18: 557-562.
59. Racette L, Chiou CY, Hao J et al. Combining functional and structural tests improves the diagnostic accuracy of relevance vector machine classifiers. J Glaucoma 2010; 19: 167-175.
60. Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, Tosoni C, Parisi L & Brusini P. Non-conventional perimetric methods in the detection of early glaucomatous functional damage. Eye (Lond) 2010; 24: 835-842.
61. Rowe FJ, Sueke H & Gawley SD. Comparison of Damato campimetry and Humphrey automated perimetry results in a clinical population. Br J Ophthalmol 2010; 94: 757-762.
62. Zhong Y, Zhou X, Cheng Y & Xie L. Relation between blue-on-yellow perimetry and optical coherence tomography in normal tension glaucoma. Can J Ophthalmol 2010; 45: 494-500.
63. Kamdeu Fansi AA, Li G & Harasymowycz PJ. The validity of screening for open-angle glaucoma in high-risk populations with single-test screening mode Frequency Doubling Technology perimetry (FDT). J Glaucoma 2011; 20: 167-171.
64. Francis BA, Varma R, Vigen C et al. Los Angeles Latino Eye Study Group. Population and high-risk group screening for glaucoma: The Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011; 52: 6257-6264.
65. Gonzalez de la Rosa M. Pulsar perimetry in the diagnosis of early glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2011; 152: 500-501.
66. Horn FK, Lämmer R, Mardin CY et al. Combined evaluation of Frequency Doubling Technology perimetry and scanning laser ophthalmoscopy for glaucoma detection using automated classification. J Glaucoma 2012; 21: 27-34.
67. Anton A, Capilla P, Morilla-Grasa A, Luque MJ, Artigas JM & Felipe A. Multichannel functional testing in normal subjects, glaucoma suspects, and glaucoma patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012; 53: 8386-8395.
68. Siddiqui MA, Azuara-Blanco A & Burr J. The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies published in ophthalmic journals. Br J Ophthalmol 2005; 89: 261-265.
69. Shunmugam M & Azuara-Blanco A. The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies in glaucoma using the Heidelberg retina tomograph. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006; 47: 2317-2323.
70. Johnson ZK, Siddiqui MAR & Azuara-Blanco A. The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies of optical coherence tomography in glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2007; 114: 1607-1612.
71. Paranjothy B, Shunmugam M & Azuara-Blanco A. The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies in glaucoma using scanning laser polarimetry. J Glaucoma 2007; 16: 670-675.
72. Zafar A, Khan GI & Siddiqui MA. The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies in diabetic retinopathy screening: a systematic review. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2008; 36: 537-542.
73. Castillo MM, Mowatt G, Lois N et al. Optical coherence tomography for the diagnosis of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review. Eye (Lond) 2014; 28: 1399-1406.
74. Harper R & Reeves B. Compliance with methodological standards when evaluating ophthalmic diagnostic tests. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999; 40: 1650-1657.
75. Coppus SF, van der Veen F, Bossuyt PM & Mol BW. Quality of reporting of test accuracy studies in reproductive medicine: impact of the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) initiative. Fertil Steril 2006; 86: 1321-1329.
76. Wilczynski NL. Quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies: no change since STARD statement publication-before-and-after study. Radiology 2008; 248: 817-823.
77. The EQUATOR Network. http://www.equator-network.org/, accessed 3/1/15.
78. Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG et al. Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 11: MR000030.