PURPOSE: To evaluate the agreement between event- and trend-based analyses to determine visual field (VF) progression in glaucoma. METHODS: VFs of 175 glaucoma eyes with ≥5 VFs were analyzed by proprietary software of VF analyzer to determine progression. Agreement (κ) between trend-based analysis of VF index (VFI) and event-based analysis (glaucoma progression analysis, GPA) was evaluated. For eyes progressing by event- and trend-based methods, time to progression by two methods was calculated. RESULTS: Median number of VFs per eye was 7 and follow-up 7.5 years. GPA classified 101 eyes (57.7%) as stable, 30 eyes (17.1%) as possible and 44 eyes (25.2%) as likely progression. Trend-based analysis classified 122 eyes (69.7%) as stable (slope >-1% per year or any slope magnitude with P>0.05), 53 eyes (30.3%) as progressing with slope <-1% per year, P≤0.05 (sensitive criteria), and 37 eyes (21.1%) as progressing with slope <-1% per year, P≤0.01 (specific criteria). κ between sensitive criteria of GPA (possible combined with likely progression) and trend-based analysis was 0.48, and between specific criteria of GPA (possible clubbed with no progression) and trend-based analysis was 0.50. In eyes progressing by sensitive criteria of both methods (42 eyes), median time to progression by GPA (4.9 years) was similar (P=0.30) to trend-based method (5.0 years). This was also similar in eyes progressing by specific criteria of both methods (25 eyes; 5.6 years versus 5.9 years, P=0.23). CONCLUSION: Agreement between event- and trend-based progression analysis was moderate. GPA seemed to detect progression earlier than trend-based analysis, but this wasn't statistically significant.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the agreement between event- and trend-based analyses to determine visual field (VF) progression in glaucoma. METHODS: VFs of 175 glaucoma eyes with ≥5 VFs were analyzed by proprietary software of VF analyzer to determine progression. Agreement (κ) between trend-based analysis of VF index (VFI) and event-based analysis (glaucoma progression analysis, GPA) was evaluated. For eyes progressing by event- and trend-based methods, time to progression by two methods was calculated. RESULTS: Median number of VFs per eye was 7 and follow-up 7.5 years. GPA classified 101 eyes (57.7%) as stable, 30 eyes (17.1%) as possible and 44 eyes (25.2%) as likely progression. Trend-based analysis classified 122 eyes (69.7%) as stable (slope >-1% per year or any slope magnitude with P>0.05), 53 eyes (30.3%) as progressing with slope <-1% per year, P≤0.05 (sensitive criteria), and 37 eyes (21.1%) as progressing with slope <-1% per year, P≤0.01 (specific criteria). κ between sensitive criteria of GPA (possible combined with likely progression) and trend-based analysis was 0.48, and between specific criteria of GPA (possible clubbed with no progression) and trend-based analysis was 0.50. In eyes progressing by sensitive criteria of both methods (42 eyes), median time to progression by GPA (4.9 years) was similar (P=0.30) to trend-based method (5.0 years). This was also similar in eyes progressing by specific criteria of both methods (25 eyes; 5.6 years versus 5.9 years, P=0.23). CONCLUSION: Agreement between event- and trend-based progression analysis was moderate. GPA seemed to detect progression earlier than trend-based analysis, but this wasn't statistically significant.
Authors: E B Werner; K I Bishop; J Koelle; G R Douglas; R P LeBlanc; R P Mills; B Schwartz; W R Whalen; J T Wilensky Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 1988-05
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