June 2013
Volume 54, Issue 15
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2013
Comparing Better-eye and Integrated Visual Field Mean Deviation as Metrics for Capturing Visual Disability
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Karun Arora
    Ophthalmology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, BALTIMORE, MD
  • Michael Boland
    Ophthalmology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, BALTIMORE, MD
  • David Friedman
    Ophthalmology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, BALTIMORE, MD
  • Joan Jefferys
    Ophthalmology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, BALTIMORE, MD
  • Sheila West
    Ophthalmology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, BALTIMORE, MD
  • Pradeep Ramulu
    Ophthalmology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, BALTIMORE, MD
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Karun Arora, None; Michael Boland, None; David Friedman, Alcon (C), Bausch & Lomb (C), Merck (C), QLT, Inc (C), Allergan (C), Nidek (C); Joan Jefferys, None; Sheila West, None; Pradeep Ramulu, None
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2013, Vol.54, 5311. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Karun Arora, Michael Boland, David Friedman, Joan Jefferys, Sheila West, Pradeep Ramulu, ; Comparing Better-eye and Integrated Visual Field Mean Deviation as Metrics for Capturing Visual Disability. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2013;54(15):5311.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: To determine 1) extent of difference between better-eye visual field (VF) mean deviation (MD) and integrated VF (IVF) MD and 2) whether better-eye or IVF MD better relates to disability measures obtained in the Salisbury Eye Evaluation (SEE)

Methods: VF testing was performed in each eye and used to calculate the amount of integrated VF loss (IVF MD) using binocular summation in both 1,098 SEE subjects and 13,955 Wilmer Eye Institute glaucoma patients. Differences between better-eye and IVF MD were calculated for the 490 SEE patients and the 7053 Wilmer glaucoma patients with VF MD ≤ -3 in at least one eye. In SEE subjects with VF loss, models were constructed to compare the relative impact of better-eye and IVF MD on driving habits, mobility, self-reported vision-related function and reading speed.

Results: The median difference between the better-eye and the IVF MD (defined as better-eye MD minus IVF MD) was 0.41 dB (Interquartile range [IQR] = -0.21 to 1.04 dB) and 0.72 dB (IQR = 0.04 to 1.45 dB) for the SEE and Wilmer glaucoma subjects with VF loss, respectively, with differences of ≥ 2 dB between the two MDs observed in 9% and 18% of the groups. Amongst SEE subjects with VF loss, better-eye and IVF MD had similar associations with multiple disability metrics as judged by the presence/absence of statistically significant association between MD and the metric, the magnitude of observed associations (i.e. odds ratios, rate ratios or regression coefficients associated with 5 dB decrements in MD) and the extent of variability in the metric explained by the model (R^2 values). For example, a 5 dB decrement in better-eye and IVF MD slowed subjects' reading speed by -19.7 and -19.1 words per minute (p<0.0001 for both), respectively, with associated R^2 values of 0.12 and 0.10. Similar findings were noted in the subgroup of glaucoma subjects and the subgroup of persons in whom better-eye and IVF MD differed by ≥ 2 dB.

Conclusions: IVF MD rarely differs from, and does not predict measures of disability better than, better-eye MD. Unlike better-eye MD, IVF measurements require extra software or calculation. Furthermore, information from studies using better-eye VF MD can be more easily integrated into clinical decision-making and therefore provide a robust and meaningful method for reporting VF loss severity. Evidence supporting the use of IVF preferentially to better-eye VF is lacking.

Keywords: 758 visual fields • 642 perimetry • 669 quality of life  
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×