April 2009
Volume 50, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2009
Glaucoma Progression Detection: Expert Visual Field Evaluation, Glaucoma Progression Analysis I and II Comparison
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • J. Bardavio
    Institut Catala de Retina, Barcelona, Spain
  • B. Martín
    Instituto Oftalmobiología Aplicada (IOBA), Valladolid, Spain
  • M. Ayala
    Institut Catala de Retina, Barcelona, Spain
  • A. Morilla
    Institut Catala de Retina, Barcelona, Spain
  • A. Anton
    Institut Catala de Retina, Barcelona, Spain
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  J. Bardavio, None; B. Martín, None; M. Ayala, None; A. Morilla, None; A. Anton, Consultant for Zeiss, C.
  • Footnotes
    Support  Grand from "Asociación para la investigación en glaucoma" MSD España
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2009, Vol.50, 2226. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      J. Bardavio, B. Martín, M. Ayala, A. Morilla, A. Anton; Glaucoma Progression Detection: Expert Visual Field Evaluation, Glaucoma Progression Analysis I and II Comparison. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2009;50(13):2226.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : to compare the ability to detect progression of three different

Methods: : expert visual field evaluation, Glaucoma Progression Analysis (GPA) by event (GPA I) and tendency (GPA II) algorithms of the Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer (HVFA)Methods: fifty four eyes with diagnosis of open angle glaucoma were recruited from 2000 until 2004 in a prospective study. All patients were examined by static perimetry (HVFA, 24-2 SITA Standard) six monthly being followed for no less than 36 months. The two tests chosen as GPA baseline required a maximum time difference of four months, less than 30% fixation losses, 30% false negative or 15% false positive errors.Main outcome measures; presence or absence of progression as evaluated subjectively by experts instructed to follow the European Glaucoma Society Guidelines, where progression required confirmation in at least two fields; presence, suspicion or absence of progression evaluated by the GPA I algorithm where two black triangles with in the same scotoma were considered suspicious and three black triangles were considered progression; presence or absence of a significant tendency of the Visual Field Index (VFI) analyzed by the GPA II algorithm, a significant tendency was considered when VFI was worse than -1,3% per year with a standard deviation inferior to 3,5%. Coincidence in detection of progression was studied

Results: : thirty-eight series of visual fields were finally considered. Sixteen were disregarded due to low reliability or baseline unavailability. Twenty-eight patients (73,7%) showed no progression by any method. Ten patients (26,3%) showed progression by one method or more. Three patients (7,8%) were detected by all three methods. Six patients were detected by both GPA I and expert evaluation (k=0.29). Four patients were detected by VFI significant change and GPA I (k=0.04). Four patients were detected by VFI significant change and expert evaluation (k=0.04). Two further patients showed VFI significant change alone

Conclusions: : event and tendency progression detection algorithms agreement was poor. Combination of methods may increase the clinical relevance of the findings in both progressing and non-progressing patients

Keywords: visual fields 
×
×

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.

×