Literature DB >> 28268099

Frequency of Testing to Detect Visual Field Progression Derived Using a Longitudinal Cohort of Glaucoma Patients.

Zhichao Wu1, Luke J Saunders1, Fábio B Daga1, Alberto Diniz-Filho1, Felipe A Medeiros2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the time required to detect statistically significant progression for different rates of visual field loss using standard automated perimetry (SAP) when considering different frequencies of testing using a follow-up scheme that resembles clinical practice.
DESIGN: Observational cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand seventy-two eyes of 665 patients with glaucoma followed up over an average of 4.3±0.9 years.
METHODS: Participants with 5 or more visual field tests over a 2- to 5-year period were included to derive the longitudinal measurement variability of SAP mean deviation (MD) using linear regressions. Estimates of variability then were used to reconstruct real-world visual field data by computer simulation to evaluate the time required to detect progression for various rates of visual field loss and different frequencies of testing. The evaluation was performed using a follow-up scheme that resembled clinical practice by requiring a set of 2 baseline tests and a confirmatory test to identify progression. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time (in years) required to detect progression.
RESULTS: The time required to detect a statistically significant negative MD slope decreased as the frequency of testing increased, albeit not proportionally. For example, 80% of eyes with an MD loss of -2 dB/year would be detected after 3.3, 2.4, and 2.1 years when testing is performed once, twice, and thrice per year, respectively. For eyes with an MD loss of -0.5 dB/year, progression can be detected with 80% power after 7.3, 5.7, and 5.0 years, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides information on the time required to detect progression using MD trend analysis in glaucoma eyes when different testing frequencies are used. The smaller gains in the time to detect progression when testing is increased from twice to thrice per year suggests that obtaining 2 reliable tests at baseline followed by semiannual testing and confirmation of progression through repeat testing in the initial years of follow-up may provide a good compromise for detecting progression, while minimizing the burden on health care resources in clinical practice.
Copyright © 2017 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28268099     DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.01.027

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ophthalmology        ISSN: 0161-6420            Impact factor:   12.079


  23 in total

1.  Sectorwise Visual Field Simulation Using Optical Coherence Tomographic Angiography Nerve Fiber Layer Plexus Measurements in Glaucoma.

Authors:  Liang Liu; Ou Tan; Eliesa Ing; John C Morrison; Beth Edmunds; Ellen Davis; Seema Gupta; Lorinna H Lombardi; Yali Jia; David Huang
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-11-23       Impact factor: 5.258

2.  Performance of the 10-2 and 24-2 Visual Field Tests for Detecting Central Visual Field Abnormalities in Glaucoma.

Authors:  Zhichao Wu; Felipe A Medeiros; Robert N Weinreb; Linda M Zangwill
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-08-10       Impact factor: 5.258

3.  Machine learning classifiers-based prediction of normal-tension glaucoma progression in young myopic patients.

Authors:  Jinho Lee; Young Kook Kim; Jin Wook Jeoung; Ahnul Ha; Yong Woo Kim; Ki Ho Park
Journal:  Jpn J Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-12-17       Impact factor: 2.447

Review 4.  Functional assessment of glaucoma: Uncovering progression.

Authors:  Rongrong Hu; Lyne Racette; Kelly S Chen; Chris A Johnson
Journal:  Surv Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-04-26       Impact factor: 6.048

5.  Comparing 10-2 and 24-2 Visual Fields for Detecting Progressive Central Visual Loss in Glaucoma Eyes with Early Central Abnormalities.

Authors:  Zhichao Wu; Felipe A Medeiros; Robert N Weinreb; Christopher A Girkin; Linda M Zangwill
Journal:  Ophthalmol Glaucoma       Date:  2019-01-14

6.  Predictive Factors for the Rate of Visual Field Progression in the Advanced Imaging for Glaucoma Study.

Authors:  Xinbo Zhang; Richard K Parrish; David S Greenfield; Brian A Francis; Rohit Varma; Joel S Schuman; Ou Tan; David Huang
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-02-20       Impact factor: 5.258

7.  Comparison of Glaucoma Progression Detection by Optical Coherence Tomography and Visual Field.

Authors:  Xinbo Zhang; Anna Dastiridou; Brian A Francis; Ou Tan; Rohit Varma; David S Greenfield; Joel S Schuman; David Huang
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-09-28       Impact factor: 5.258

8.  Longitudinal visual field variability and the ability to detect glaucoma progression in black and white individuals.

Authors:  Brian Stagg; Eduardo B Mariottoni; Samuel Berchuck; Alessandro Jammal; Angela R Elam; Rachel Hess; Kensaku Kawamoto; Benjamin Haaland; Felipe A Medeiros
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-05-13       Impact factor: 5.908

9.  Qualitative Evaluation of the 10-2 and 24-2 Visual Field Tests for Detecting Central Visual Field Abnormalities in Glaucoma.

Authors:  Adi Orbach; Ghee Soon Ang; Andrew S Camp; Derek S Welsbie; Felipe A Medeiros; Christopher A Girkin; Massimo A Fazio; Won Hyuk Oh; Robert N Weinreb; Linda M Zangwill; Zhichao Wu
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-02-21       Impact factor: 5.488

10.  Deep Learning Approaches Predict Glaucomatous Visual Field Damage from OCT Optic Nerve Head En Face Images and Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness Maps.

Authors:  Mark Christopher; Christopher Bowd; Akram Belghith; Michael H Goldbaum; Robert N Weinreb; Massimo A Fazio; Christopher A Girkin; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Linda M Zangwill
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2019-09-30       Impact factor: 12.079

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.