Purchase this article with an account.
Blanca Monsalve, Antonio Ferreras, Miriam Ara, Sofia Otin, Carlos Cortes; Agreement between the Heidelberg Edge perimetry and the Moorfields regression analysis classifications in healthy and glaucoma individuals. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2013;54(15):2280.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
To evaluate the agreement between the functional classification of Heidelberg Edge perimetry (HEP) and the Moorfields regression classification (MRA) of the Heidelberg retina tomograph 3 (HRT3) in healthy and glaucoma subjects.
Fifty healthy individuals and 105 open-angle glaucoma patients were consecutive and prospectively selected. All participants underwent at least a reliable HEP (Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany) and were imaged with the HRT3 (Heidelberg Engineering). Eligible subjects for the glaucoma group had to have intraocular pressure higher than 20 mmHg and abnormal HEP. Only one eye from each participant was randomly chosen, unless only one eye met the inclusion criteria. Left eyes were converted to a right eye format. The normative database results of the 6 MRA sectors, obtained after manual outlining of the disc boundaries, were compared with the equivalent 6 functional sectors automatically generated by HEP.
Mean age was 59.34 ± 9.5 years in the control group and 61.11 ± 9.3 years in the glaucoma group. Mean deviation was -5.43 ± 6.1 dB in the glaucoma group. 96% to 100% of the normal eyes were classified as within normal limits (WNL) by both, the HEP and MRA, classifications, while no sector was considered as outside normal limits (ONL). In the glaucoma group, classifications differed less than 10% for the number of patients classified as WNL, borderline and ONL at every sector. Nasal inferior sector was colored as ONL in the 41% of the glaucoma patients for both classifications.
The HEP and MRA classifications had similar diagnostic performance. The agreement between both classifications was excellent for normal subjects and very high for glaucoma patients.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only