Literature DB >> 21357405

What reduction in standard automated perimetry variability would improve the detection of visual field progression?

Andrew Turpin1, Allison M McKendrick.   

Abstract

PURPOSE. The test-retest variability of standard automated perimetry (SAP) severely limits its ability to detect sensitivity decline. Numerous improvements in procedures have been proposed, but assessment of their benefits requires quantification of how much variability reduction results in meaningful benefit. This article determines how much reduction in SAP procedure variability is necessary to permit earlier detection of visual field deterioration. METHOD. Computer simulation and statistical analysis were used. Gaussian distributions were fit to the probability of observing any sensitivity measurement obtained with SAP and the Full Threshold algorithm to model current variability. The standard deviation of these Gaussians was systematically reduced to model a reduction of SAP variability. Progression detection ability was assessed by using pointwise linear regression on decreases of -1 and -2 dB/year from 20 and 30 dB, with a custom criteria that fixed detection specificity at 95%. Test visits occurring twice and thrice per annum are modeled, and analysis was performed on single locations and whole fields. RESULTS. A 30% to 60% reduction in SAP variability was required to detect pointwise deterioration 1 year earlier than current methods, depending on progression rate and visit frequency. A reduction of 20% in variability generally allowed progression to be detected one visit earlier. CONCLUSIONS. On average, the variability of SAP procedures must be reduced by approximately 20% for a clinically appreciable improvement in detection of visual field change. Analysis similar to that demonstrated can measure the improvement required of new procedures, assisting in cost-benefit assessment for the adoption of new techniques, before lengthy and expensive clinical trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21357405     DOI: 10.1167/iovs.10-6255

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


  19 in total

1.  Association Between Neurocognitive Decline and Visual Field Variability in Glaucoma.

Authors:  Alberto Diniz-Filho; Lisa Delano-Wood; Fábio B Daga; Sebastião Cronemberger; Felipe A Medeiros
Journal:  JAMA Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-07-01       Impact factor: 7.389

2.  Differences in the Relation Between Perimetric Sensitivity and Variability Between Locations Across the Visual Field.

Authors:  Stuart K Gardiner
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2018-07-02       Impact factor: 4.799

3.  Prediction Accuracy of the Dynamic Structure-Function Model for Glaucoma Progression Using Contrast Sensitivity Perimetry and Confocal Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscopy.

Authors:  Koosha Ramezani; Iván Marín-Franch; Rongrong Hu; William H Swanson; Lyne Racette
Journal:  J Glaucoma       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 2.503

4.  Detection of Glaucoma Progression in Individuals of African Descent Compared With Those of European Descent.

Authors:  Carolina P B Gracitelli; Linda M Zangwill; Alberto Diniz-Filho; Ricardo Y Abe; Christopher A Girkin; Robert N Weinreb; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Felipe A Medeiros
Journal:  JAMA Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-04-01       Impact factor: 7.389

5.  Comparison of Short- And Long-Term Variability in Standard Perimetry and Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography in Glaucoma.

Authors:  Carla N Urata; Eduardo B Mariottoni; Alessandro A Jammal; Nara G Ogata; Atalie C Thompson; Samuel I Berchuck; Tais Estrela; Felipe A Medeiros
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-11-09       Impact factor: 5.258

6.  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

7.  Improving Visual Field Examination of the Macula Using Structural Information.

Authors:  Giovanni Montesano; Luca M Rossetti; Davide Allegrini; Mario R Romano; David P Crabb
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2018-12-28       Impact factor: 3.283

8.  Choice of Stimulus Range and Size Can Reduce Test-Retest Variability in Glaucomatous Visual Field Defects.

Authors:  William H Swanson; Douglas G Horner; Mitchell W Dul; Victor E Malinovsky
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2014-09-25       Impact factor: 3.283

9.  Optimizing contrast sensitivity perimetry for clinical use.

Authors:  Mitchell W Dul
Journal:  J Ophthalmic Vis Res       Date:  2013-01

10.  Towards Patient-Tailored Perimetry: Automated Perimetry Can Be Improved by Seeding Procedures With Patient-Specific Structural Information.

Authors:  Jonathan Denniss; Allison M McKendrick; Andrew Turpin
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2013-05-31       Impact factor: 3.283

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.