Literature DB >> 12766064

The collaborative initial glaucoma treatment study: baseline visual field and test-retest variability.

Brenda W Gillespie1, David C Musch, Kenneth E Guire, Richard P Mills, Paul R Lichter, Nancy K Janz, Patricia A Wren.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the baseline Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study (CIGTS) visual field (VF) score and mean deviation (MD), investigate test-retest variability, and identify variables associated with VF loss and VF measurement variability.
METHODS: Baseline data from a randomized clinical trial of 607 patients with newly diagnosed open-angle glaucoma were collected at 14 clinical centers. The CIGTS VF score and MD were obtained from 24-2 VF tests (Zeiss-Humphrey Systems, Dublin, CA) at two visits approximately 2 weeks apart.
RESULTS: Although most baseline CIGTS VF scores showed limited field loss, 15% (91/607) of patients showed a substantial deficit (VF score >10 on a 0-20 scale). A small but significant learning effect was seen over the two baseline measures for CIGTS VF score and MD. CIGTS VF score and MD correlate highly (r = -0.93); both have high test-retest correlation (0.83 and 0.91, respectively). Variables associated with greater baseline VF loss for both CIGTS VF score and MD include (probabilities for VF only): male sex (P = 0.018), black race (P <or= 0.0001), lower visual acuity (P <or= 0.0001), higher intraocular pressure if more than 30 mm Hg (P = 0.0034), poor field reliability score (P <or= 0.0001), cardiovascular disease (P = 0.015), reduced patient-reported alertness (P = 0.023), and CIGTS clinical center (P <or= 0.0001). Predictors of increased CIGTS VF score variability include a midrange VF score (P <or= 0.0001), first-tested eye (P = 0.0027), reduced patient-reported alertness (P = 0.0177), increasing age (P = 0.0040), current smoker (P = 0.0014), and CIGTS clinical center (P = 0.0215).
CONCLUSIONS: The CIGTS VF score provides a measure of VF strikingly similar to the MD. Variables associated with VF loss and VF variability may help identify patients who need greater clinical scrutiny.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12766064     DOI: 10.1167/iovs.02-0543

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci        ISSN: 0146-0404            Impact factor:   4.799


  32 in total

1.  Hemodynamic evaluation of the posterior ciliary circulation in exfoliation syndrome and exfoliation glaucoma.

Authors:  Efstathios T Detorakis; Athanassios K Achtaropoulos; Eleni E Drakonaki; Vassilios P Kozobolis
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2006-11-17       Impact factor: 3.117

2.  Optical coherence tomography angiography in pre-perimetric open-angle glaucoma.

Authors:  Gilda Cennamo; Daniela Montorio; Nunzio Velotti; Federica Sparnelli; Michele Reibaldi; Giovanni Cennamo
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-06-19       Impact factor: 3.117

Review 3.  [Conventional techniques of visual field examination: part 4 Static perimetry: interpretation--perimetric indices--follow-up--perimetry in childhood].

Authors:  U Schiefer; J Pätzold; B Wabbels; F Dannheim
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 1.059

4.  Comparison of preservative-free latanoprost and preservative-free bimatoprost in a multicenter, randomized, investigator-masked cross-over clinical trial, the SPORT trial.

Authors:  Ingeborg Stalmans; Francesco Oddone; Maria Francesca Cordeiro; Anton Hommer; Giovanni Montesano; Luisa Ribeiro; Gordana Sunaric-Mégevand; Luca Rossetti
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-02-24       Impact factor: 3.117

Review 5.  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

6.  Why Do People (Still) Go Blind from Glaucoma?

Authors:  Remo Susanna; Carlos Gustavo De Moraes; George A Cioffi; Robert Ritch
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2015-03-09       Impact factor: 3.283

7.  Impact of intraocular pressure reduction on visual field progression in normal-tension glaucoma followed up over 15 years.

Authors:  Shinya Oie; Kyoko Ishida; Tetsuya Yamamoto
Journal:  Jpn J Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-05-26       Impact factor: 2.447

8.  Agreement and Predictors of Discordance of 6 Visual Field Progression Algorithms.

Authors:  Osamah J Saeedi; Tobias Elze; Loris D'Acunto; Ramya Swamy; Vikram Hegde; Surabhi Gupta; Amin Venjara; Joby Tsai; Jonathan S Myers; Sarah R Wellik; Carlos Gustavo De Moraes; Louis R Pasquale; Lucy Q Shen; Michael V Boland
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2019-02-04       Impact factor: 12.079

9.  Intraocular pressure control and long-term visual field loss in the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study.

Authors:  David C Musch; Brenda W Gillespie; Leslie M Niziol; Paul R Lichter; Rohit Varma
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2011-05-20       Impact factor: 12.079

10.  Age- and race-related differences in human scleral material properties.

Authors:  Rafael Grytz; Massimo A Fazio; Vincent Libertiaux; Luigi Bruno; Stuart Gardiner; Christopher A Girkin; J Crawford Downs
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2014-11-11       Impact factor: 4.799

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.