Literature DB >> 11973255

Frequency of testing for detecting visual field progression.

S K Gardiner1, D P Crabb.   

Abstract

AIMS: To investigate the effect of frequency of testing on the determination of visual field progression using pointwise linear regression (PLR).
METHODS: A "virtual eye" was developed to simulate series of sensitivities over time at a given point in the eye. The user can input the actual behaviour of the point (for example, stable or deteriorating steadily), and then a configurable amount of noise is added to produce a realistic series over time. The advantage of this over using patient data is that the actual status of the eye is known. Series were generated using different frequencies of testing, and the diagnosis that would have been made from each series was compared with the true status of the eye. A point was diagnosed as progressing if the regression line for the series showed a deterioration of at least 1 dB per year, significant at the 1% level. From these results, graphs were produced showing the number of points correctly or incorrectly diagnosed as progressing.
RESULTS: With the virtual eye deteriorating at a rate of 2 dB/year, it was found that the point was determined to be progressing quicker when more tests were carried out each year. With a stable virtual eye, it was found that increasing the frequency of testing increased the number of series that were falsely labelled as progressing during the first 3 years of testing.
CONCLUSIONS: As the frequency of testing increases, the sensitivity of PLR increases. However, the specificity decreases; possibly meaning more unnecessary changes in treatment. Three tests per year provide a good compromise between sensitivity and specificity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11973255      PMCID: PMC1771142          DOI: 10.1136/bjo.86.5.560

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0007-1161            Impact factor:   4.638


  26 in total

1.  Variability components of standard automated perimetry and frequency-doubling technology perimetry.

Authors:  P G Spry; C A Johnson; A M McKendrick; A Turpin
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 4.799

2.  Response variability in the visual field: comparison of optic neuritis, glaucoma, ocular hypertension, and normal eyes.

Authors:  D B Henson; S Chaudry; P H Artes; E B Faragher; A Ansons
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 4.799

3.  Normal variability of static perimetric threshold values across the central visual field.

Authors:  A Heijl; G Lindgren; J Olsson
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1987-11

4.  Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial: design and baseline data.

Authors:  M C Leske; A Heijl; L Hyman; B Bengtsson
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 12.079

5.  Glaucoma surgery with or without adjunctive antiproliferatives in normal tension glaucoma: 2 Visual field progression.

Authors:  W L Membrey; C Bunce; D P Poinoosawmy; F W Fitzke; R A Hitchings
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 4.638

6.  Simulation of longitudinal threshold visual field data.

Authors:  P G Spry; A B Bates; C A Johnson; B C Chauhan
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 4.799

7.  Sensitivity of Swedish interactive threshold algorithm compared with standard full threshold algorithm in Humphrey visual field testing.

Authors:  G C Sekhar; T J Naduvilath; M Lakkai; A J Jayakumar; G T Pandi; A K Mandal; S G Honavar
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 12.079

8.  Comparison of visual field progression in patients with normal pressure glaucoma between eyes with and without visual field loss that threatens fixation.

Authors:  W L Membrey; D P Poinoosawmy; C Bunce; F W Fitzke; R A Hitchings
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 4.638

9.  The long-term fluctuation of the visual field in stable glaucoma.

Authors:  N Hutchings; J M Wild; M K Hussey; J G Flanagan; G E Trope
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 4.799

10.  Differential light threshold. Short- and long-term fluctuation in patients with glaucoma, normal controls, and patients with suspected glaucoma.

Authors:  J Flammer; S M Drance; M Zulauf
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1984-05
View more
  22 in total

1.  Bayes' theorem applied to perimetric progression detection in glaucoma: from specificity to positive predictive value.

Authors:  Nomdo M Jansonius
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2004-12-01       Impact factor: 3.117

2.  Towards an optimal perimetric strategy for progression detection in glaucoma: from fixed-space to adaptive inter-test intervals.

Authors:  Nomdo M Jansonius
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2005-07-28       Impact factor: 3.117

3.  Progression detection in glaucoma can be made more efficient by using a variable interval between successive visual field tests.

Authors:  Nomdo M Jansonius
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2007-04-17       Impact factor: 3.117

Review 4.  Detection of visual field progression in glaucoma with standard achromatic perimetry: a review and practical implications.

Authors:  Kouros Nouri-Mahdavi; Nariman Nassiri; Annette Giangiacomo; Joseph Caprioli
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2011-08-26       Impact factor: 3.117

5.  A Two-step Estimation Approach for Logistic Varying Coefficient Modeling of Longitudinal Data.

Authors:  Jun Dong; Jason P Estes; Gang Li; Damla Şentürk
Journal:  J Stat Plan Inference       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 1.111

Review 6.  Functional assessment of glaucoma: Uncovering progression.

Authors:  Rongrong Hu; Lyne Racette; Kelly S Chen; Chris A Johnson
Journal:  Surv Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-04-26       Impact factor: 6.048

Review 7.  Detection and measurement of clinically meaningful visual field progression in clinical trials for glaucoma.

Authors:  C Gustavo De Moraes; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Leonard A Levin
Journal:  Prog Retin Eye Res       Date:  2016-10-20       Impact factor: 21.198

8.  A two-stage neural spiking model of visual contrast detection in perimetry.

Authors:  S K Gardiner; W H Swanson; S Demirel; A M McKendrick; A Turpin; C A Johnson
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2008-07-21       Impact factor: 1.886

9.  Assessment of the reliability of standard automated perimetry in regions of glaucomatous damage.

Authors:  Stuart K Gardiner; William H Swanson; Deborah Goren; Steven L Mansberger; Shaban Demirel
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2014-03-12       Impact factor: 12.079

10.  Quantification of Visual Field Variability in Glaucoma: Implications for Visual Field Prediction and Modeling.

Authors:  Alessandro Rabiolo; Esteban Morales; Abdelmonem A Afifi; Fei Yu; Kouros Nouri-Mahdavi; Joseph Caprioli
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2019-10-17       Impact factor: 3.283

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.