April 2010
Volume 51, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2010
Comparison of Methods to Evaluate Visual Field Series
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • A. Chatterjee
    Glaucoma Research Center, Wills Eye Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • J. S. Myers
    Glaucoma Research Center, Wills Eye Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • B. Shue
    Glaucoma Research Center, Wills Eye Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • J. E. Rome
    Glaucoma Research Center, Wills Eye Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • D. Lo
    Glaucoma Research Center, Wills Eye Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • S. Fudemberg
    Glaucoma Research Center, Wills Eye Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • M. Pro
    Glaucoma Research Center, Wills Eye Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • G. L. Spaeth
    Glaucoma Research Center, Wills Eye Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • L. J. Katz
    Glaucoma Research Center, Wills Eye Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  A. Chatterjee, None; J.S. Myers, Haag-Streit, F; B. Shue, None; J.E. Rome, None; D. Lo, None; S. Fudemberg, None; M. Pro, None; G.L. Spaeth, None; L.J. Katz, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  None.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2010, Vol.51, 5498. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      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)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract
 
Purpose:
 

To compare clinicians' evaluations, in masked fashion, of aseries of Humphrey SITA Standard 24-2 visual fields (HVFs) presentedby each of three

 
Methods:
 

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.

 
Results:
 

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.

 
Conclusions:
 

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.  

 

 
Keywords: visual fields • perimetry • clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: systems/equipment/techniques 
×
×

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.

×