Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science Cover Image for Volume 61, Issue 7
June 2020
Volume 61, Issue 7
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2020
Comparing 5 Criteria for Identifying Glaucomatous Visual Field Damage
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Herman Stubeda
    Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
  • Jack Quach
    Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
  • Jennifer Gao
    Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
  • Marcelo T Nicolela
    Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
  • Balwantray C Chauhan
    Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
  • Jayme R Vianna
    Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Herman Stubeda, None; Jack Quach, None; Jennifer Gao, None; Marcelo Nicolela, Alcon (C), Alcon (S), Allergan (C), Allergan (S); Balwantray Chauhan, Allergan (C), Allergan (S), Centervue (S), Heidelberg Engineering (C), Heidelberg Engineering (S), Topcon (S); Jayme Vianna, Eadietech (C)
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2020, Vol.61, 3212. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Herman Stubeda, Jack Quach, Jennifer Gao, Marcelo T Nicolela, Balwantray C Chauhan, Jayme R Vianna; Comparing 5 Criteria for Identifying Glaucomatous Visual Field Damage. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2020;61(7):3212.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : There is currently no consensus on visual field (VF) criteria that define glaucoma. The purpose of this study was to compare the hit rates and consistency of 5 VF criteria for glaucoma: Glaucoma Hemifield Test (GHT), Hoddap-Anderson-Parrish 2 (HAP2), Foster, United Kingdom Glaucoma Treatment Study (UKGTS), and Low-pressure Glaucoma Treatment Study (LoGTS).

Methods : We retrospectively paired VF (Humphrey 24-2 SITA) and OCT (Spectralis) exams that were performed within 4 months of each other from a 2-year period in our Glaucoma Clinic, with non-glaucoma pathologies excluded. One eye per patient was randomly selected. We measured global and sectoral averages of optic nerve head minimum rim width, circumpapillary retinal nerve fiber layer thickness, and macular ganglion cell layer thickness with OCT, and considered them abnormal when thinner than the 1% percentile of the age-adjusted normative value. We created an OCT abnormality score ranging from 0 (no average abnormality in any structure) to 6 (all three structures with 2 or more averages abnormal). Criteria specificities were inferred from hit rates in patients with score of 0, while sensitivities were inferred from hit rates in patients with higher scores. Criteria consistencies were inferred from follow-up mismatch rates, defined as the proportion of patients with an initial VF having positive results and the following VF having negative results.

Results : We obtained 1230 eyes with a mean (standard deviation) age of 67.1 (12.3) years, and a mean VF mean deviation of -3.34 (4.78) dB. In eyes with OCT score of 0, HAP2 and UKGTS had higher hit rates indicating low specificities, while GHT, Foster, LoGTS had lower hit rates indicating high specificities (Fig. 1). In eyes with OCT score of 6, HAP2 and UKGTS had higher hit rates indicating high sensitivities while GHT, Foster, and LoGTS had lower hit rates, indicating low sensitivities. The hit rates at other OCT scores followed the same trend. There was a large overlap among criteria (Fig. 1), however, this decreased with lesser VF damage. Follow-up mismatch rates were higher in eyes with lower OCT scores (Fig.2).

Conclusions : Our results highlight the lack of a criteria with a uniformly superior diagnostic performance compared to others. The selection of criteria for study design would therefore depend on the degree of damage anticipated, and need for either better sensitivity or specificity.

This is a 2020 ARVO Annual Meeting abstract.

 

 

×
×

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.

×