Donald C Hood1, Ali S Raza2, Carlos G De Moraes3, Paula A Alhadeff4, Juliet Idiga3, Dana M Blumberg3, Jeffrey M Liebmann5, Robert Ritch4. 1. Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA ; Department of Ophthalmology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 2. Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA ; Department of Neurobiology and Behavior, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 4. Einhorn Clinical Research Center, New York Eye and Ear Infirmary of Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA. 5. Einhorn Clinical Research Center, New York Eye and Ear Infirmary of Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA ; New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We assessed the use of a customized, one-page structure + function report for aiding in detection of glaucomatous damage. METHODS: Two individuals (report specialists), experienced in analyzing optical coherent tomography (OCT) and visual field (VF) results, examined a customized one-page report for 50 eyes from 50 patients who either had glaucoma or were glaucoma suspects. The report contained key features of OCT scans with VF information. All patients had 24-2 VFs with a mean deviation (MD) better than -6 dB. The report specialists classified each hemifield and eye as either glaucomatous or nonglaucomatous based upon only the customized report, either without (phase 1) or with (phase 2) 24-2 VF information included on the report. Their results were compared to the classifications made by 3 ophthalmologists (glaucoma specialists) based upon traditional measures, namely stereo photographs, 24-2 VFs, and a commercially available, OCT disc scan report. RESULTS: The two report specialists agreed on all but one eye and four hemifields in phase 1, and on all eyes and all but one hemifield in phase 2. In phase 2, they judged 31 eyes abnormal. Of these 31 eyes, 30 were judged abnormal by all three glaucoma specialists and the 31st by two of the three. Without the VF information (phase 1), one report specialist classified 1, and the other 2, of these 31 "abnormal" eyes as normal. CONCLUSIONS: When using the one-page report, the experienced readers showed excellent inter-rater repeatability and diagnostic ability relative to glaucoma specialists. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: This condensed report may help the clinician assess glaucomatous damage.
PURPOSE: We assessed the use of a customized, one-page structure + function report for aiding in detection of glaucomatous damage. METHODS: Two individuals (report specialists), experienced in analyzing optical coherent tomography (OCT) and visual field (VF) results, examined a customized one-page report for 50 eyes from 50 patients who either had glaucoma or were glaucoma suspects. The report contained key features of OCT scans with VF information. All patients had 24-2 VFs with a mean deviation (MD) better than -6 dB. The report specialists classified each hemifield and eye as either glaucomatous or nonglaucomatous based upon only the customized report, either without (phase 1) or with (phase 2) 24-2 VF information included on the report. Their results were compared to the classifications made by 3 ophthalmologists (glaucoma specialists) based upon traditional measures, namely stereo photographs, 24-2 VFs, and a commercially available, OCT disc scan report. RESULTS: The two report specialists agreed on all but one eye and four hemifields in phase 1, and on all eyes and all but one hemifield in phase 2. In phase 2, they judged 31 eyes abnormal. Of these 31 eyes, 30 were judged abnormal by all three glaucoma specialists and the 31st by two of the three. Without the VF information (phase 1), one report specialist classified 1, and the other 2, of these 31 "abnormal" eyes as normal. CONCLUSIONS: When using the one-page report, the experienced readers showed excellent inter-rater repeatability and diagnostic ability relative to glaucoma specialists. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: This condensed report may help the clinician assess glaucomatous damage.
Authors: Donald C Hood; Anastasia Slobodnick; Ali S Raza; Carlos Gustavo de Moraes; Christopher C Teng; Robert Ritch Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-02-03 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Daiyan Xin; Christine L Talamini; Ali S Raza; Carlos Gustavo V de Moraes; Vivienne C Greenstein; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Robert Ritch; Donald C Hood Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-09-09 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Donald C Hood; Brad Fortune; Maria A Mavrommatis; Juan Reynaud; Rithambara Ramachandran; Robert Ritch; Richard B Rosen; Hassan Muhammad; Alfredo Dubra; Toco Y P Chui Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Hassan Muhammad; Thomas J Fuchs; Nicole De Cuir; Carlos G De Moraes; Dana M Blumberg; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Robert Ritch; Donald C Hood Journal: J Glaucoma Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: C Gustavo De Moraes; Donald C Hood; Abinaya Thenappan; Christopher A Girkin; Felipe A Medeiros; Robert N Weinreb; Linda M Zangwill; Jeffrey M Liebmann Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2017-05-24 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Diane L Wang; Ali S Raza; Carlos Gustavo de Moraes; Monica Chen; Paula Alhadeff; Ravivarn Jarukatsetphorn; Robert Ritch; Donald C Hood Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2015-11-30 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Donald C Hood; Monica F Chen; Dongwon Lee; Benjamin Epstein; Paula Alhadeff; Richard B Rosen; Robert Ritch; Alfredo Dubra; Toco Y P Chui Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2015-04-10 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Abinaya Thenappan; Emmanouil Tsamis; Zane Z Zemborain; Sol La Bruna; Melvi Eguia; Devon Joiner; Carlos Gustavo De Moraes; Donald C Hood Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2021-05-01 Impact factor: 2.106