PURPOSE: Ocular imaging devices provide quantitative structural information that might improve glaucoma progression detection. This study examined scanning laser polarimetry (SLP) population-derived versus individual-derived cut-off criteria for detecting progression. METHODS: Forty-eight healthy, glaucoma suspect and glaucoma subjects, providing 76 eyes were used. All subjects had reliable visual field (VF) and SLP scans acquired at the same visits from ≥4 visits. VF progression was defined by guided progression analysis (GPA) and by the VF index. SLP measurements were analysed by fast mode (FM) GPA, compared with the population rate of progression, and extended mode (EM) GPA, compared with the individual variability. The agreement between progression detection methods was measured. RESULTS: Poor agreement was observed between progression defined by VF and FM and EM. The difference in temporal-superior-nasal-inferior-temporal (TSNIT) average rate of change between VF defined progressors and non-progressors for both FM (p=0.010) and EM (p=0.015) was statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: There is poor agreement between VF and SLP progression regardless of the use of population derived or individual variability criteria. The best SLP progression detection method could not be ascertained, therefore, acquiring three SLP scans per visit is recommended.
PURPOSE: Ocular imaging devices provide quantitative structural information that might improve glaucoma progression detection. This study examined scanning laser polarimetry (SLP) population-derived versus individual-derived cut-off criteria for detecting progression. METHODS: Forty-eight healthy, glaucoma suspect and glaucoma subjects, providing 76 eyes were used. All subjects had reliable visual field (VF) and SLP scans acquired at the same visits from ≥4 visits. VF progression was defined by guided progression analysis (GPA) and by the VF index. SLP measurements were analysed by fast mode (FM) GPA, compared with the population rate of progression, and extended mode (EM) GPA, compared with the individual variability. The agreement between progression detection methods was measured. RESULTS: Poor agreement was observed between progression defined by VF and FM and EM. The difference in temporal-superior-nasal-inferior-temporal (TSNIT) average rate of change between VF defined progressors and non-progressors for both FM (p=0.010) and EM (p=0.015) was statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: There is poor agreement between VF and SLP progression regardless of the use of population derived or individual variability criteria. The best SLP progression detection method could not be ascertained, therefore, acquiring three SLP scans per visit is recommended.
Authors: Richard K Parrish; Joyce C Schiffman; William J Feuer; Douglas R Anderson; Donald L Budenz; Maria-Cristina Wells-Albornoz; Ruth Vandenbroucke; Michael A Kass; Mae O Gordon Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Nicholas G Strouthidis; Andrew Scott; Neena M Peter; David F Garway-Heath Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: D S Kamal; A C Viswanathan; D F Garway-Heath; R A Hitchings; D Poinoosawmy; C Bunce Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Gadi Wollstein; Joel S Schuman; Lori L Price; Ali Aydin; Paul C Stark; Ellen Hertzmark; Edward Lai; Hiroshi Ishikawa; Cynthia Mattox; James G Fujimoto; Lelia A Paunescu Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2005-04
Authors: Andrew J Patterson; David F Garway-Heath; Nicholas G Strouthidis; David P Crabb Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Augusto Azuara-Blanco; L Jay Katz; George L Spaeth; Stephen A Vernon; Fiona Spencer; Ines M Lanzl Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Henry D Jampel; David Friedman; Harry Quigley; Susan Vitale; Rhonda Miller; Frederick Knezevich; Yulan Ding Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2008-09-13 Impact factor: 5.258