Purchase this article with an account.
A. Chatterjee, J. S. Myers, B. Shue, J. E. Rome, D. Lo, S. Fudemberg, M. Pro, G. L. Spaeth, L. J. Katz; Comparison of Methods to Evaluate Visual Field Series. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2010;51(13):5498.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
To compare clinicians' evaluations, in masked fashion, of aseries of Humphrey SITA Standard 24-2 visual fields (HVFs) presentedby each of three
The Humphrey/Zeiss Glaucoma Progression Analysis (GPA), theOctopus EyeSuite analysis, and raw serial HVF printouts.Methods:From a large field database, 38 glaucoma subjects who had atleast five reliable (fewer than 40% false positives, false negatives,and fixation losses) HVFs and visual acuity greater than 20/50,were selected. Two glaucoma specialists evaluated the fieldsfrom the more reliable eye for progression requiring therapyadvancement, using the GPA, EyeSuite, and serial HVF printoutseries. A subset of five fields appeared twice in each of thethree sets to assess intraobserver repeatability. Results werecompared by inter/intraobserver agreement, Hodapp-Parrish-Anderson(HPA) criteria, and time to complete analysis.
Interobserver agreement was greatest for EyeSuite (86%), followedby GPA (83%) and serial HVFs (65%). In comparison with HPA criteria,agreement was EyeSuite (74%), GPA (73%) and serial HVFs (65%).EyeSuite agreement with HPA increases to 77% if a 1.0dB/yr cutoffis applied for progression. The average time to complete all43 assessments (minutes), was EyeSuite 7.5, GPA 11.9, and serialHVFs 16.8.
Similar rates of agreement among measures were seen for allmodalities of visual field interpretation. Physician interpretationwas quickest with the EyeSuite software, followed by the GPA,with similar results to analysis of serial field data.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only