Literature DB >> 31637105

Quantification of Visual Field Variability in Glaucoma: Implications for Visual Field Prediction and Modeling.

Alessandro Rabiolo1,2, Esteban Morales1, Abdelmonem A Afifi3, Fei Yu1,3, Kouros Nouri-Mahdavi1, Joseph Caprioli1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To quantify visual field (VF) variability as a function of threshold sensitivity and location, and to compare weighted pointwise linear regression (PLR) with unweighted PLR and pointwise exponential regression (PER) for data fit and prediction ability.
METHODS: Two datasets were used for this retrospective study. The first was used to characterize and estimate VF variability, and included a total of 4,747 eyes of 3,095 glaucoma patients with six or more VFs and 3 years or more of follow-up. After performing PER for each series, standard deviation of residuals was quantified for each decibel of sensitivity as a measure of variability. A separate dataset was used to test and compare unweighted PLR, weighted PLR, and PER for data fit and prediction, and included 261 eyes of 176 primary open-angle glaucoma patients with 10 or more VFs and 6 years or more of follow-up.
RESULTS: The degree of variability changed as a function of threshold sensitivity with a zenith and a nadir at 33 and 11 dB, respectively. Variability decreased with eccentricity and was higher in the central 10° (P < 0.001). Differences among the methods for data fit were negligible. PER was the best model to predict future sensitivity values in the mid term and long term.
CONCLUSIONS: VF variability increases with the severity of glaucoma damage and decreases with eccentricity. Weighted linear regression neither improves model fit nor prediction. PER exhibited the best prediction ability, which is likely related to the nonlinear nature of long-term glaucomatous perimetric decay. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: This study suggests that taking into account heteroscedasticity has no advantage in VF modeling. Copyright 2019 The Authors.

Entities:  

Keywords:  heteroscedasticity; perimetry; pointwise exponential regression; prediction; regression modeling; visual field progression; weighted linear regression

Year:  2019        PMID: 31637105      PMCID: PMC6798312          DOI: 10.1167/tvst.8.5.25

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol        ISSN: 2164-2591            Impact factor:   3.283


  44 in total

1.  Senescent changes of the normal visual field: an age-old problem.

Authors:  P G Spry; C A Johnson
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 1.973

2.  Author response: On alternative methods for measuring visual field decay: Tobit linear regression.

Authors:  Joseph Caprioli; Dennis Mock; Elena Bitrian; Abdelmonem Afifi; Fei Yu; Kouros Nouri-Mahdavi; Anne Coleman
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2012-01-10       Impact factor: 4.799

3.  Long-term fluctuation of the visual field in glaucoma.

Authors:  R J Boeglin; J Caprioli; M Zulauf
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  1992-04-15       Impact factor: 5.258

4.  Test-retest variability in glaucomatous visual fields.

Authors:  A Heijl; A Lindgren; G Lindgren
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  1989-08-15       Impact factor: 5.258

Review 5.  Identification of progressive glaucomatous visual field loss.

Authors:  Paul G D Spry; Chris A Johnson
Journal:  Surv Ophthalmol       Date:  2002 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 6.048

6.  Modelling series of visual fields to detect progression in normal-tension glaucoma.

Authors:  A I McNaught; D P Crabb; F W Fitzke; R A Hitchings
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 3.117

7.  Points of a normal visual field are not statistically independent.

Authors:  B J Lachenmayr; U Kiermeir; S Kojetinsky
Journal:  Ger J Ophthalmol       Date:  1995-05

8.  Differential light threshold in automated static perimetry. Factors influencing short-term fluctuation.

Authors:  J Flammer; S M Drance; F Fankhauser; L Augustiny
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1984-06

9.  Fluctuation of the differential light threshold at the border of absolute scotomas. Comparison between glaucomatous visual field defects and blind spots.

Authors:  I O Haefliger; J Flammer
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  1991-10       Impact factor: 12.079

10.  New insights into measurement variability in glaucomatous visual fields from computer modelling.

Authors:  Richard A Russell; David F Garway-Heath; David P Crabb
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-12-30       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Optical coherence tomography and optical coherence tomography angiography in glaucoma: diagnosis, progression, and correlation with functional tests.

Authors:  Giacinto Triolo; Alessandro Rabiolo
Journal:  Ther Adv Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-01-17

2.  Inter-Eye Association of Visual Field Defects in Glaucoma and Its Clinical Utility.

Authors:  Bettina Teng; Dian Li; Eun Young Choi; Lucy Q Shen; Louis R Pasquale; Michael V Boland; Pradeep Ramulu; Sarah R Wellik; Carlos Gustavo De Moraes; Jonathan S Myers; Siamak Yousefi; Thao Nguyen; Yuying Fan; Hui Wang; Peter J Bex; Tobias Elze; Mengyu Wang
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2020-11-17       Impact factor: 3.048

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.