May 2008
Volume 49, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2008
Agreement of GPA Progression Program With Gold Standard of Glaucoma Progression
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • J. Bandi
    Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami Miller School of Med, Miami, Florida
  • D. L. Budenz
    Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami Miller School of Med, Miami, Florida
  • W. Feuer
    Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami Miller School of Med, Miami, Florida
  • D. R. Anderson
    Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami Miller School of Med, Miami, Florida
  • R. Feldman
    Ophthalmology & Visual Science, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas
  • L. Herndon
    Duke University Eye Center, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
  • D. Rhee
    Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
  • A. Tanna
    Department of Ophthalmology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
  • J. Whiteside-DeVos
    None, Shaker Heights, Ohio
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  J. Bandi, None; D.L. Budenz, Carl Zeiss Meditec, F; Carl Zeiss Meditec, R; W. Feuer, None; D.R. Anderson, Carl Zeiss Meditec, F; R. Feldman, None; L. Herndon, None; D. Rhee, None; A. Tanna, None; J. Whiteside-DeVos, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  Supported in part by NEI grant P30 EY-014801 and in part by Research to Prevent Blindness and by an unrestricted grant from Carl Zeiss Meditec
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2008, Vol.49, 1095. doi:https://doi.org/
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      J. Bandi, D. L. Budenz, W. Feuer, D. R. Anderson, R. Feldman, L. Herndon, D. Rhee, A. Tanna, J. Whiteside-DeVos; Agreement of GPA Progression Program With Gold Standard of Glaucoma Progression. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2008;49(13):1095. doi: https://doi.org/.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : To determine whether the GPA progression program agrees with gold standard determinations of glaucoma progression made by glaucoma experts.

Methods: : Five serial Humphrey 24-2 visual fields from 100 eyes were collected during clinical monitoring of patients with glaucoma. Determinations of progression were made with both the Humphrey GPA progression analysis software and independently by five glaucoma experts. The glaucoma experts rated each sequence of fields with respect to progression as none, questionable, probable, and definite. These were subsequently dichotomized as progressed (rated probable or definite) or not. One month later the glaucoma experts rated the field sets again after they were assigned new subject identifiers and shuffled. For the first and second readings separately, the glaucoma-expert "gold standard" for each eye was determined by the majority dichotomized designation of the five readers. The gold standard from the first readings was compared to GPA and to the second readings.

Results: : The first expert gold standard determination identified 51 eyes which progressed and 49 which did not. The second independent ratings agreed with the first 89% of the time, and the kappa statistic was 0.78 (SE=0.05). (Kappa ranges of agreement ≤ 0.4 are considered poor; >0.4 to <0.75, fair to good; and ≥0.75, excellent.) GPA determinations made from these fields classified 30 eyes as likely progression, 17 eyes as possible progression, and 53 eyes as non-progressed. 78% of gold standard and GPA determinations agreed, kappa=0.56 (SE=0.08) when the GPA analysis possible progression was combined with likely progression. If possible progression was combined with no progression, only 69% of gold standard and GPA determinations agreed, with kappa=0.39 (SE=0.08).Although the repeat majority gold standard expert determinations agreed well (kappa=0.78), individual intra-rater agreement was only fair to good (kappa values ranged from 0.58 to 0.71) and inter-rater kappa values within a single set of gradings were only fair (kappa=0.45).

Conclusions: : Only if the GPA analysis possible progression was combined with the likely progression, the kappa statistic suggests that the GPA software was equivalent to the majority determination of 5 readers.

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.

×