John L Keltner1, Chris A Johnson2, Kimberly E Cello3, Michael Wall4. 1. Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Science, University of California-Davis, Sacramento, California, United States Department of Neurology and Neurological Surgery, University of California-Davis, Sacramento, California, United States. 2. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Iowa, Iowa, United States. 3. Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Science, University of California-Davis, Sacramento, California, United States. 4. Department of Neurology and Ophthalmology, College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa, United States.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To characterize visual field (VF) loss at the baseline visit and to evaluate VF quality control (QC) procedures in the Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension Treatment Trial (IIHTT). METHODS: The Visual Field Reading Center (VFRC) evaluated 660 baseline VFs (1320 hemifields) from 165 enrolled patients. Three readers independently classified each superior and inferior hemifield and identified any abnormalities. A subset (20%) of the hemifields was reread to evaluate within- and between-reader agreements. The QC system addressed test parameters, patient data, and shipment errors. RESULTS: The majority (60%) of the baseline hemifields consisted of localized nerve fiber bundle-type VF loss. Approximately one-third (31.5%) of all the classifications consisted of partial arcuate defects combined with an enlarged blind spot, making this the most common type of hemifield classification. Inferior hemifield loss was greater than superior loss for both study and nonstudy eyes. Reader agreements were >90% for both inferior and superior hemifields for two out of three readers. Test-retest reliability agreement for individual readers was 95% for both hemifields. There were few QC errors with only 5.48 error points per 100-point VF. CONCLUSIONS: The most common type of IIHTT baseline hemifield abnormality was a localized nerve fiber bundle-like defect. Localized inferior hemifield loss was more common than superior hemifield loss. Quality control and within- and between-reader agreement were excellent for the IIHTT (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01003639). Copyright 2014 The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To characterize visual field (VF) loss at the baseline visit and to evaluate VF quality control (QC) procedures in the Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension Treatment Trial (IIHTT). METHODS: The Visual Field Reading Center (VFRC) evaluated 660 baseline VFs (1320 hemifields) from 165 enrolled patients. Three readers independently classified each superior and inferior hemifield and identified any abnormalities. A subset (20%) of the hemifields was reread to evaluate within- and between-reader agreements. The QC system addressed test parameters, patient data, and shipment errors. RESULTS: The majority (60%) of the baseline hemifields consisted of localized nerve fiber bundle-type VF loss. Approximately one-third (31.5%) of all the classifications consisted of partial arcuate defects combined with an enlarged blind spot, making this the most common type of hemifield classification. Inferior hemifield loss was greater than superior loss for both study and nonstudy eyes. Reader agreements were >90% for both inferior and superior hemifields for two out of three readers. Test-retest reliability agreement for individual readers was 95% for both hemifields. There were few QC errors with only 5.48 error points per 100-point VF. CONCLUSIONS: The most common type of IIHTT baseline hemifield abnormality was a localized nerve fiber bundle-like defect. Localized inferior hemifield loss was more common than superior hemifield loss. Quality control and within- and between-reader agreement were excellent for the IIHTT (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01003639). Copyright 2014 The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.
Authors: John J Chen; Matthew J Thurtell; Reid A Longmuir; Mona K Garvin; Jui-Kai Wang; Michael Wall; Randy H Kardon Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Markus H Kuehn; Rajashree Mishra; Benjamin E Deonovic; Kimberly N Miller; Shana E McCormack; Grant T Liu; Mark J Kupersmith; Michael Wall Journal: J Neuroophthalmol Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 3.042
Authors: Michael Wall; Chris A Johnson; Kimberly E Cello; K D Zamba; Michael P McDermott; John L Keltner Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 4.799