Osamah J Saeedi1, Tobias Elze2, Loris D'Acunto3, Ramya Swamy4, Vikram Hegde3, Surabhi Gupta3, Amin Venjara5, Joby Tsai4, Jonathan S Myers6, Sarah R Wellik7, Carlos Gustavo De Moraes8, Louis R Pasquale9, Lucy Q Shen10, Michael V Boland11. 1. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland. Electronic address: osaeedi@som.umaryland.edu. 2. Schepens Eye Research Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. San Francisco, California. 4. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland. 5. Princeton, New Jersey. 6. Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 7. Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, Florida. 8. Bernard and Shirlee Brown Glaucoma Research Laboratory, Edward S. Harkness Eye Institute, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York. 9. Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Channing Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 10. Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 11. Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the agreement of 6 established visual field (VF) progression algorithms in a large dataset of VFs from multiple institutions and to determine predictors of discordance among these algorithms. DESIGN: Retrospective longitudinal cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Visual fields from 5 major eye care institutions in the United States were analyzed, including a subset of eyes with at least 5 Swedish interactive threshold algorithm standard 24-2 VFs that met our reliability criteria. Of a total of 831 240 VFs, a subset of 90 713 VFs from 13 156 eyes of 8499 patients met the inclusion criteria. METHODS: Six commonly used VF progression algorithms (mean deviation [MD] slope, VF index slope, Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study, Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study, pointwise linear regression, and permutation of pointwise linear regression) were applied to this cohort, and each eye was determined to be stable or progressing using each measure. Agreement between individual algorithms was tested using Cohen's κ coefficient. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were used to determine predictors of discordance (3 algorithms progressing and 3 algorithms stable). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Agreement and discordance between algorithms. RESULTS: Individual algorithms showed poor to moderate agreement with each other when compared directly (κ range, 0.12-0.52). Based on at least 4 algorithms, 11.7% of eyes progressed. Major predictors of discordance or lack of agreement among algorithms were more depressed initial MD (P < 0.01) and older age at first available VF (P < 0.01). A greater number of VFs (P < 0.01), more years of follow-up (P < 0.01), and eye care institution (P = 0.03) also were associated with discordance. CONCLUSIONS: This extremely large comparative series demonstrated that existing algorithms have limited agreement and that agreement varies with clinical parameters, including institution. These issues underscore the challenges to the clinical use and application of progression algorithms and of applying big-data results to individual practices.
PURPOSE: To determine the agreement of 6 established visual field (VF) progression algorithms in a large dataset of VFs from multiple institutions and to determine predictors of discordance among these algorithms. DESIGN: Retrospective longitudinal cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Visual fields from 5 major eye care institutions in the United States were analyzed, including a subset of eyes with at least 5 Swedish interactive threshold algorithm standard 24-2 VFs that met our reliability criteria. Of a total of 831 240 VFs, a subset of 90 713 VFs from 13 156 eyes of 8499 patients met the inclusion criteria. METHODS: Six commonly used VF progression algorithms (mean deviation [MD] slope, VF index slope, Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study, Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study, pointwise linear regression, and permutation of pointwise linear regression) were applied to this cohort, and each eye was determined to be stable or progressing using each measure. Agreement between individual algorithms was tested using Cohen's κ coefficient. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were used to determine predictors of discordance (3 algorithms progressing and 3 algorithms stable). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Agreement and discordance between algorithms. RESULTS: Individual algorithms showed poor to moderate agreement with each other when compared directly (κ range, 0.12-0.52). Based on at least 4 algorithms, 11.7% of eyes progressed. Major predictors of discordance or lack of agreement among algorithms were more depressed initial MD (P < 0.01) and older age at first available VF (P < 0.01). A greater number of VFs (P < 0.01), more years of follow-up (P < 0.01), and eye care institution (P = 0.03) also were associated with discordance. CONCLUSIONS: This extremely large comparative series demonstrated that existing algorithms have limited agreement and that agreement varies with clinical parameters, including institution. These issues underscore the challenges to the clinical use and application of progression algorithms and of applying big-data results to individual practices.
Authors: Paul P Lee; John G Walt; John J Doyle; Sameer V Kotak; Stacy J Evans; Donald L Budenz; Philip P Chen; Anne L Coleman; Robert M Feldman; Henry D Jampel; L Jay Katz; Richard P Mills; Jonathan S Myers; Robert J Noecker; Jody R Piltz-Seymour; Robert R Ritch; Paul N Schacknow; Janet B Serle; Gary L Trick Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2006-01
Authors: Michael H Goldbaum; Pamela A Sample; Kwokleung Chan; Julia Williams; Te-Won Lee; Eytan Blumenthal; Christopher A Girkin; Linda M Zangwill; Christopher Bowd; Terrence Sejnowski; Robert N Weinreb Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Anders Heijl; Boel Bengtsson; Balwantray C Chauhan; Marc F Lieberman; Ian Cunliffe; Leslie Hyman; M Cristina Leske Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2008-04-18 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Siamak Yousefi; Tobias Elze; Louis R Pasquale; Osamah Saeedi; Mengyu Wang; Lucy Q Shen; Sarah R Wellik; Carlos G De Moraes; Jonathan S Myers; Michael V Boland Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2020-03-10 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Alireza Kamalipour; Sasan Moghimi; Huiyuan Hou; James A Proudfoot; Takashi Nishida; Linda M Zangwill; Robert N Weinreb Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2021-11-19 Impact factor: 5.488
Authors: Anna S Mursch-Edlmayr; Wai Siene Ng; Alberto Diniz-Filho; David C Sousa; Louis Arnold; Matthew B Schlenker; Karla Duenas-Angeles; Pearse A Keane; Jonathan G Crowston; Hari Jayaram Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2020-10-15 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Elena Solli; Hiten Doshi; Tobias Elze; Louis Pasquale; Michael Wall; Mark Kupersmith Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2022-01-03 Impact factor: 3.048