Giovanni Montesano1, Susan R Bryan2, David P Crabb3, Paolo Fogagnolo4, Francesco Oddone5, Allison M McKendrick6, Andrew Turpin7, Paolo Lanzetta8, Andrea Perdicchi9, Chris A Johnson10, David F Garway-Heath11, Paolo Brusini12, Luca M Rossetti4. 1. University of Milan - ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo, Milan, Italy; City, University of London, Optometry and Visual Sciences, London, United Kingdom; NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, United Kingdom. 2. City, University of London, Optometry and Visual Sciences, London, United Kingdom. 3. City, University of London, Optometry and Visual Sciences, London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: David.Crabb.1@city.ac.uk. 4. University of Milan - ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo, Milan, Italy. 5. G. B. Bietti Eye Foundation-IRCCS, Rome, Italy. 6. University of Melbourne, Department of Optometry and Vision Sciences, Melbourne, Australia. 7. University of Melbourne, School of Computing and Information System, Melbourne, Australia. 8. Department of Medical and Biological Sciences, Ophthalmology Unit, University of Udine, Udine, Italy. 9. Ophthalmology Unit, St. Andrea Hospital, NESMOS Department, University of Rome "Sapienza," Rome, Italy. 10. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa. 11. NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, United Kingdom. 12. Department of Ophthalmology, "Città di Udine" Health Center, Udine, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate relative diagnostic precision and test-retest variability of 2 devices, the Compass (CMP, CenterVue, Padova, Italy) fundus perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA, Zeiss, Dublin, CA), in detecting glaucomatous optic neuropathy (GON). DESIGN: Multicenter, cross-sectional, case-control study. PARTICIPANTS: We sequentially enrolled 499 patients with glaucoma and 444 normal subjects to analyze relative precision. A separate group of 44 patients with glaucoma and 54 normal subjects was analyzed to assess test-retest variability. METHODS: One eye of recruited subjects was tested with the index tests: HFA (Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm [SITA] standard strategy) and CMP (Zippy Estimation by Sequential Testing [ZEST] strategy), 24-2 grid. The reference test for GON was specialist evaluation of fundus photographs or OCT, independent of the visual field (VF). For both devices, linear regression was used to calculate the sensitivity decrease with age in the normal group to compute pointwise total deviation (TD) values and mean deviation (MD). We derived 5% and 1% pointwise normative limits. The MD and the total number of TD values below 5% (TD 5%) or 1% (TD 1%) limits per field were used as classifiers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We used partial receiver operating characteristic (pROC) curves and partial area under the curve (pAUC) to compare the diagnostic precision of the devices. Pointwise mean absolute deviation and Bland-Altman plots for the mean sensitivity (MS) were computed to assess test-retest variability. RESULTS: Retinal sensitivity was generally lower with CMP, with an average mean difference of 1.85±0.06 decibels (dB) (mean ± standard error, P < 0.001) in healthy subjects and 1.46±0.05 dB (mean ± standard error, P < 0.001) in patients with glaucoma. Both devices showed similar discriminative power. The MD metric had marginally better discrimination with CMP (pAUC difference ± standard error, 0.019±0.009, P = 0.035). The 95% limits of agreement for the MS were reduced by 13% in CMP compared with HFA in participants with glaucoma and by 49% in normal participants. Mean absolute deviation was similar, with no significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Relative diagnostic precision of the 2 devices is equivalent. Test-retest variability of MS for CMP was better than for HFA.
PURPOSE: To evaluate relative diagnostic precision and test-retest variability of 2 devices, the Compass (CMP, CenterVue, Padova, Italy) fundus perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA, Zeiss, Dublin, CA), in detecting glaucomatous optic neuropathy (GON). DESIGN: Multicenter, cross-sectional, case-control study. PARTICIPANTS: We sequentially enrolled 499 patients with glaucoma and 444 normal subjects to analyze relative precision. A separate group of 44 patients with glaucoma and 54 normal subjects was analyzed to assess test-retest variability. METHODS: One eye of recruited subjects was tested with the index tests: HFA (Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm [SITA] standard strategy) and CMP (Zippy Estimation by Sequential Testing [ZEST] strategy), 24-2 grid. The reference test for GON was specialist evaluation of fundus photographs or OCT, independent of the visual field (VF). For both devices, linear regression was used to calculate the sensitivity decrease with age in the normal group to compute pointwise total deviation (TD) values and mean deviation (MD). We derived 5% and 1% pointwise normative limits. The MD and the total number of TD values below 5% (TD 5%) or 1% (TD 1%) limits per field were used as classifiers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We used partial receiver operating characteristic (pROC) curves and partial area under the curve (pAUC) to compare the diagnostic precision of the devices. Pointwise mean absolute deviation and Bland-Altman plots for the mean sensitivity (MS) were computed to assess test-retest variability. RESULTS: Retinal sensitivity was generally lower with CMP, with an average mean difference of 1.85±0.06 decibels (dB) (mean ± standard error, P < 0.001) in healthy subjects and 1.46±0.05 dB (mean ± standard error, P < 0.001) in patients with glaucoma. Both devices showed similar discriminative power. The MD metric had marginally better discrimination with CMP (pAUC difference ± standard error, 0.019±0.009, P = 0.035). The 95% limits of agreement for the MS were reduced by 13% in CMP compared with HFA in participants with glaucoma and by 49% in normal participants. Mean absolute deviation was similar, with no significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Relative diagnostic precision of the 2 devices is equivalent. Test-retest variability of MS for CMP was better than for HFA.
Authors: Luca Scuderi; Irene Gattazzo; Alessandro de Paula; Clemente Maria Iodice; Federico Di Tizio; Andrea Perdicchi Journal: Int Ophthalmol Date: 2022-01-30 Impact factor: 2.029
Authors: Giovanni Montesano; Luca M Rossetti; Davide Allegrini; Mario R Romano; David P Crabb Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2018-12-28 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Nicola K Cassels; John M Wild; Tom H Margrain; Chris Blyth; Victor Chong; Jennifer H Acton Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2019-12-31 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Giovanni Montesano; Giovanni Ometto; Bethany E Higgins; Radha Das; Katie W Graham; Usha Chakravarthy; Bernadette McGuiness; Ian S Young; Frank Kee; David M Wright; David P Crabb; Ruth E Hogg Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Giovanni Montesano; Luca M Rossetti; Davide Allegrini; Mario R Romano; David F Garway-Heath; David P Crabb Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2021-02-05 Impact factor: 3.283