Karun S Arora1, Michael V Boland2, David S Friedman3, Joan L Jefferys2, Sheila K West3, Pradeep Y Ramulu3. 1. Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. Electronic address: arora.karun@gmail.com. 2. Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland; Dana Center for Preventive Ophthalmology, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent of difference between better-eye visual field (VF) mean deviation (MD) and integrated VF (IVF) MD among Salisbury Eye Evaluation (SEE) subjects and a larger group of glaucoma clinic subjects and to assess how those measures relate to objective and subjective measures of ability/performance in SEE subjects. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of population- and clinic-based samples of adults. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 490 SEE and 7053 glaucoma clinic subjects with VF loss (MD ≤-3 decibels [dB] in at least 1 eye). METHODS: Visual field testing was performed in each eye, and IVF MD was calculated. Differences between better-eye and IVF MD were calculated for SEE and clinic-based subjects. In SEE subjects with VF loss, models were constructed to compare the relative impact of better-eye and IVF MD on driving habits, mobility, self-reported vision-related function, and reading speed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Difference between better-eye and IVF MD and relationship of better-eye and IVF MD with performance measures. RESULTS: The median difference between better-eye and IVF MD was 0.41 dB (interquartile range [IQR], -0.21 to 1.04 dB) and 0.72 dB (IQR, 0.04-1.45 dB) for SEE subjects and clinic-based patients with glaucoma, respectively, with differences of ≥ 2 dB between the 2 MDs observed in 9% and 18% of the groups, respectively. Among SEE subjects with VF loss, both MDs demonstrated similar associations with multiple ability and performance metrics as judged by the presence/absence of a statistically significant association between the MD and the metric, the magnitude of observed associations (odds ratios, rate ratios, or regression coefficients associated with 5-dB decrements in MD), and the extent of variability in the metric explained by the model (R(2)). Similar associations of similar magnitude also were noted for the subgroup of subjects with glaucoma and subjects in whom better-eye and IVF MD differed by ≥ 2 dB. CONCLUSIONS: The IVF MD rarely differs from better-eye MD, and similar associations between VF loss and visual disability are obtained using either MD. Unlike better-eye MD, IVF measurements require extra software/calculation. As such, information from studies using better-eye MD can be more easily integrated into clinical decision-making, making better-eye MD a robust and meaningful method for reporting VF loss severity.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent of difference between better-eye visual field (VF) mean deviation (MD) and integrated VF (IVF) MD among Salisbury Eye Evaluation (SEE) subjects and a larger group of glaucoma clinic subjects and to assess how those measures relate to objective and subjective measures of ability/performance in SEE subjects. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of population- and clinic-based samples of adults. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 490 SEE and 7053 glaucoma clinic subjects with VF loss (MD ≤-3 decibels [dB] in at least 1 eye). METHODS: Visual field testing was performed in each eye, and IVF MD was calculated. Differences between better-eye and IVF MD were calculated for SEE and clinic-based subjects. In SEE subjects with VF loss, models were constructed to compare the relative impact of better-eye and IVF MD on driving habits, mobility, self-reported vision-related function, and reading speed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Difference between better-eye and IVF MD and relationship of better-eye and IVF MD with performance measures. RESULTS: The median difference between better-eye and IVF MD was 0.41 dB (interquartile range [IQR], -0.21 to 1.04 dB) and 0.72 dB (IQR, 0.04-1.45 dB) for SEE subjects and clinic-based patients with glaucoma, respectively, with differences of ≥ 2 dB between the 2 MDs observed in 9% and 18% of the groups, respectively. Among SEE subjects with VF loss, both MDs demonstrated similar associations with multiple ability and performance metrics as judged by the presence/absence of a statistically significant association between the MD and the metric, the magnitude of observed associations (odds ratios, rate ratios, or regression coefficients associated with 5-dB decrements in MD), and the extent of variability in the metric explained by the model (R(2)). Similar associations of similar magnitude also were noted for the subgroup of subjects with glaucoma and subjects in whom better-eye and IVF MD differed by ≥ 2 dB. CONCLUSIONS: The IVF MD rarely differs from better-eye MD, and similar associations between VF loss and visual disability are obtained using either MD. Unlike better-eye MD, IVF measurements require extra software/calculation. As such, information from studies using better-eye MD can be more easily integrated into clinical decision-making, making better-eye MD a robust and meaningful method for reporting VF loss severity.
Authors: Ryo Asaoka; David P Crabb; Takehiro Yamashita; Richard A Russell; Ya Xing Wang; David F Garway-Heath Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-09-01 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Pradeep Y Ramulu; Eugenio Maul; Chad Hochberg; Emilie S Chan; Luigi Ferrucci; David S Friedman Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2012-03-02 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Kaushal M Kulkarni; Jason R Mayer; Luciano L Lorenzana; Jonathan S Myers; George L Spaeth Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2012-05-24 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Pradeep Y Ramulu; Suzanne W van Landingham; Robert W Massof; Emilie S Chan; Luigi Ferrucci; David S Friedman Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2012-04-04 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Chad Hochberg; Eugenio Maul; Emilie S Chan; Suzanne Van Landingham; Luigi Ferrucci; David S Friedman; Pradeep Y Ramulu Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2012-05-31 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Pradeep Y Ramulu; Sheila K West; Beatriz Munoz; Henry D Jampel; David S Friedman Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2009-07-09 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: David C Musch; Leslie M Niziol; Brenda W Gillespie; Paul R Lichter; Nancy K Janz Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2017-04-10 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Ricardo Y Abe; Alberto Diniz-Filho; Vital P Costa; Zhichao Wu; Felipe A Medeiros Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2017-10-13 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Felipe A Medeiros; Carolina P B Gracitelli; Erwin R Boer; Robert N Weinreb; Linda M Zangwill; Peter N Rosen Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2014-10-16 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Priya M Mathews; Gary S Rubin; Michael McCloskey; Sherveen Salek; Pradeep Y Ramulu Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2015-03-03 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Dana M Blumberg; Carlos Gustavo De Moraes; Alisa J Prager; Qi Yu; Lama Al-Aswad; George A Cioffi; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Donald C Hood Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Angeline M Nguyen; Suzanne W van Landingham; Robert W Massof; Gary S Rubin; Pradeep Y Ramulu Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-07-22 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Pujan Dave; Guadalupe Villarreal; David S Friedman; Malik Y Kahook; Pradeep Y Ramulu Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2015-08-08 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Jithin Yohannan; Jiangxia Wang; Jamie Brown; Balwantray C Chauhan; Michael V Boland; David S Friedman; Pradeep Y Ramulu Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Pradeep Y Ramulu; Chad Hochberg; Eugenio A Maul; Emilie S Chan; Luigi Ferrucci; David S Friedman Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 1.973