PURPOSE: The major objective of this study was to test the reproducibility of a new method of estimating the amount of optic disc damage in patients with glaucoma. METHODS: The Disc Damage Likelihood Scale (DDLS) is based on the appearance of the neuroretinal rim of the optic disc corrected for disc diameter. The eight stages, extending from no damage to far advanced damage, are based on the width of the neuroretinal rim or the circumferential extent of absence of neuroretinal rim. Reproducibility was measured by two masked observers staging 48 optic nerve stereoscopic photographs by two different methods, the cup/disc ratio (c/d) and the DDLS. Also, reproducibility was assessed by three observers examining 34 eyes of 24 patients. RESULTS: With regard to the photographs, the intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility was better using the DDLS than the c/d ratio (98% versus 85% for intraobserver of reproducibility, and 85% versus 74% for interobserver reproducibility). The DDLS correlated better with the Humphrey Visual Field than did any Heidelberg Retina Tomograph parameter. CONCLUSION: In a clinical setting, the DDLS is as reproducible as, or more reproducible than, the c/d ratio system of estimating the amount of disc damage in patients with glaucoma.
PURPOSE: The major objective of this study was to test the reproducibility of a new method of estimating the amount of optic disc damage in patients with glaucoma. METHODS: The Disc Damage Likelihood Scale (DDLS) is based on the appearance of the neuroretinal rim of the optic disc corrected for disc diameter. The eight stages, extending from no damage to far advanced damage, are based on the width of the neuroretinal rim or the circumferential extent of absence of neuroretinal rim. Reproducibility was measured by two masked observers staging 48 optic nerve stereoscopic photographs by two different methods, the cup/disc ratio (c/d) and the DDLS. Also, reproducibility was assessed by three observers examining 34 eyes of 24 patients. RESULTS: With regard to the photographs, the intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility was better using the DDLS than the c/d ratio (98% versus 85% for intraobserver of reproducibility, and 85% versus 74% for interobserver reproducibility). The DDLS correlated better with the Humphrey Visual Field than did any Heidelberg Retina Tomograph parameter. CONCLUSION: In a clinical setting, the DDLS is as reproducible as, or more reproducible than, the c/d ratio system of estimating the amount of disc damage in patients with glaucoma.
Authors: William J Feuer; Richard K Parrish; Joyce C Schiffman; Douglas R Anderson; Donald L Budenz; Maria-Cristina Wells; Ditte J Hess; Michael A Kass; Mae O Gordon Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Sophie Cai; Tobias Elze; Peter J Bex; Janey L Wiggs; Louis R Pasquale; Lucy Q Shen Journal: Curr Eye Res Date: 2016-08-05 Impact factor: 2.424
Authors: Ian D Danford; Lana D Verkuil; Daniel J Choi; David W Collins; Harini V Gudiseva; Katherine E Uyhazi; Marisa K Lau; Levi N Kanu; Gregory R Grant; Venkata R M Chavali; Joan M O'Brien Journal: Prog Retin Eye Res Date: 2017-02-20 Impact factor: 21.198
Authors: Allison K Ungar; Gadi Wollstein; Hiroshi Ishikawa; Lindsey S Folio; Yun Ling; Richard A Bilonick; Robert J Noecker; Juan Xu; Larry Kagemann; Cynthia Mattox; Joel S Schuman Journal: Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Date: 2012-05-31
Authors: Kenman Gan; Yao Liu; Brian Stagg; Siddarth Rathi; Louis R Pasquale; Karim Damji Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2020-03-25 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Mark B Horton; Christopher J Brady; Jerry Cavallerano; Michael Abramoff; Gail Barker; Michael F Chiang; Charlene H Crockett; Seema Garg; Peter Karth; Yao Liu; Clark D Newman; Siddarth Rathi; Veeral Sheth; Paolo Silva; Kristen Stebbins; Ingrid Zimmer-Galler Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2020-03-25 Impact factor: 3.536