Paul J Ernest1, Jan S Schouten2, Henny J Beckers2, Fred Hendrikse2, Martin H Prins3, Carroll A Webers2. 1. University Eye Clinic Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: p.j.g.ernest@gmail.com. 2. University Eye Clinic Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine which prognostic factors are associated with glaucomatous visual field progression. DESIGN: Knowledge of prognostic factors helps clinicians to select patients at risk of glaucomatous visual field progression and intensify their treatment. METHODS: By consulting relevant databases, we identified 2733 articles published up to September 2010, of which 85 articles investigating prognostic factors for visual field progression in patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) were eligible. We summarized results for each factor in tables, noting the direction of the association between the prognostic factor and progression, and the accompanying P value. Four authors, working blind to the factors, independently judged the extent to which a prognostic factor was associated with glaucomatous visual field progression. If there were different associations for normal-tension glaucoma (NTG) studies, they were judged separately. Consensus was reached during group meetings. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A ranking of all studied prognostic factors for glaucomatous visual field progression according to their likelihood of being prognostic. RESULTS: A total of 103 different prognostic factors were investigated in 85 articles. The following factors were clearly associated with glaucomatous visual field progression: age, disc hemorrhages (for NTG), baseline visual field loss, baseline intraocular pressure (IOP), and exfoliation syndrome. An association was unlikely for family history of glaucoma, atherosclerosis, systemic hypertension, visual acuity, sex (for NTG), systolic blood pressure, myopic refractive error (for NTG), and Raynaud's phenomenon. CONCLUSIONS: The factors we found clearly associated with progression could be used in clinical practice and for developing clinical prediction models. For many other factors, further research is necessary.
PURPOSE: To examine which prognostic factors are associated with glaucomatous visual field progression. DESIGN: Knowledge of prognostic factors helps clinicians to select patients at risk of glaucomatous visual field progression and intensify their treatment. METHODS: By consulting relevant databases, we identified 2733 articles published up to September 2010, of which 85 articles investigating prognostic factors for visual field progression in patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) were eligible. We summarized results for each factor in tables, noting the direction of the association between the prognostic factor and progression, and the accompanying P value. Four authors, working blind to the factors, independently judged the extent to which a prognostic factor was associated with glaucomatous visual field progression. If there were different associations for normal-tension glaucoma (NTG) studies, they were judged separately. Consensus was reached during group meetings. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A ranking of all studied prognostic factors for glaucomatous visual field progression according to their likelihood of being prognostic. RESULTS: A total of 103 different prognostic factors were investigated in 85 articles. The following factors were clearly associated with glaucomatous visual field progression: age, disc hemorrhages (for NTG), baseline visual field loss, baseline intraocular pressure (IOP), and exfoliation syndrome. An association was unlikely for family history of glaucoma, atherosclerosis, systemic hypertension, visual acuity, sex (for NTG), systolic blood pressure, myopic refractive error (for NTG), and Raynaud's phenomenon. CONCLUSIONS: The factors we found clearly associated with progression could be used in clinical practice and for developing clinical prediction models. For many other factors, further research is necessary.
Authors: Abinaya Thenappan; Carlos Gustavo De Moraes; Diane L Wang; Daiyan Xin; Ravivarn Jarukasetphon; Robert Ritch; Donald C Hood Journal: J Glaucoma Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Donald L Budenz; Julia Beiser Huecker; Steven J Gedde; Mae Gordon; Michael Kass Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2016-11-07 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Moon Jeong Lee; Jiangxia Wang; David S Friedman; Michael V Boland; Carlos G De Moraes; Pradeep Y Ramulu Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2018-10-10 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Xinbo Zhang; Anna Dastiridou; Brian A Francis; Ou Tan; Rohit Varma; David S Greenfield; Joel S Schuman; Mitra Sehi; Vikas Chopra; David Huang Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2016-09-17 Impact factor: 5.258