Prediction of visual field progression in glaucoma

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 45, Issue 12, 2004, Pages 4346-4351

  Nouri Mahdavi, Kouros ^a   Hoffman, Douglas ^a   Gaasterland, Douglas ^b   Caprioli, Joseph ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b Univ Ophthal Consult Washington   (United States)

^c JULES STEIN EYE INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; AGE; AGED; ALGORITHM; ARGON LASER; ARTICLE; CATARACT EXTRACTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE COURSE; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OPEN ANGLE GLAUCOMA; PERIMETRY; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; TRABECULECTOMY; TRABECULOPLASTY; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL FIELD DEFECT;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AGING; DISEASE PROGRESSION; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; LINEAR MODELS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROGNOSIS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 9444288214     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.04-0204     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Nouri-Mahdavi K, Hoffman D, Coleman AL, et al. Predictive factors for glaucomatous visual field progression in Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study. Ophthalmology. 2004;111:1627-1635.
2. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 7. The relationship between control of intraocular pressure and visual field deterioration. The AGIS Investigators. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000; 130:429-440.
3. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 12. Baseline risk factors for sustained loss of visual field and visual acuity in patients with advanced glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;134: 499-512.
4. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 1. Study design and methods and baseline characteristics of study patients. Control Clin Trials. 1994;15:299-325.
5. Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study. 2. Visual field test scoring and reliability. Ophthalmology. 1994;101:1445-1455.
6. Nouri-Mahdavi K, Coleman AL, Hoffman D, Caprioli J, Gaasterland DE. Pointwise linear regression for evaluation of visual field outcomes and comparison to the AGIS methodology. Arch Ophthalmol. In press.
7. Gardiner SK, Crabb DP. Examination of different pointwise linear regression methods for determining visual field progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:1400-1407.
8. Noureddin BN, Poinoosawmy D, Fietzke FW, Hitchings RA. Regression analysis of visual field progression in low tension glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 1991;75:493-495.
9. Membrey WL, Poinoosawmy DP, Bunce C, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA. Comparison of visual field progression in patients with normal pressure glaucoma between eyes with and without visual field loss that threatens fixation. Br J Ophthalmol. 2000; 84:1154-1158.
10. Membrey WL, Bunce C, Poinoosawmy DP, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA, Glaucoma surgery with or without adjunctive antiproliferatives in normal tension glaucoma: 2 Visual field progression, Br J Ophthalmol. 2001;85:696-701.
11. 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.
12. Holmin C, Krakau CE. Regression analysis of the central visual field in chronic glaucoma cases: a follow-up study using automatic perimetry. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1982;60:267-274,
13. Krakau C. A statistical trap in the evaluation of visual field decay. Acta Ophthalmologica Suppl. 1985;173:19-21.
14. Spry PG, Bates AB, Johnson CA, Chauhan BC. Simulation of longitudinal threshold visual field data. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:2192-2200.