Donald C Hood1, Abinaya A Thenappan2, Emmanouil Tsamis3, Jeffrey M Liebmann4, C Gustavo De Moraes4. 1. Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA; Bernard and Shirlee Brown Glaucoma Research Laboratory, Department of Ophthalmology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA. Electronic address: dch3@columbia.edu. 2. Columbia Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York, USA. 3. Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA. 4. Bernard and Shirlee Brown Glaucoma Research Laboratory, Department of Ophthalmology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We sought to test the hypothesis that a recently proposed pattern standard deviation (PSD) metric, based upon the 24-2 visual field (VF) test, as well as the PSD of the 10-2 VF, will miss central glaucomatous damage confirmed with an objective structure-function method. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: A glaucoma (G) group (70 eyes/patients) diagnosed with glaucoma and a 24-2 mean deviation better than -6 dB and a healthy (H) group (45 eyes/patients) had 24-2 and 10-2 VFs and optical coherence tomography (OCT) scans twice within 4 weeks. The PSD(C24-2), based upon the central 12 points of the 24-2, was compared with the PSD(10-2). To evaluate central damage (CD) in G eyes with normal PSD(C24-2) values, a post hoc analysis was combined with a CD reference standard (CD-RS), which was based upon an objective, topographic comparison between abnormal points on the 10-2 VF and OCT probability maps. RESULTS: The 115 PSD(C24-2) and PSD(10-2) values were significantly correlated (Spearman correclation coefficient: rho = 0.55; P < .001) and the number of G eyes (19) identified as abnormal by the PSD(C24-2) was not significantly different from the number (22) identified by the PSD(10-2) (P = .15). However, based upon the CD-RS, 44 of 70 G eyes were classified as abnormal. The PSD(C24-2) missed 27 (61%) of these 44 eyes, and the PSD(10-2) missed 23 (52%) of these eyes. Post hoc analysis revealed clear CD in most of these eyes. CONCLUSION: Neither the PSD(C24-2) nor the PSD(10-2) metric is good measure of early CD. Instead we recommend a topographic approach based upon OCT probability maps and a 10-2 VF.
PURPOSE: We sought to test the hypothesis that a recently proposed pattern standard deviation (PSD) metric, based upon the 24-2 visual field (VF) test, as well as the PSD of the 10-2 VF, will miss central glaucomatous damage confirmed with an objective structure-function method. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: A glaucoma (G) group (70 eyes/patients) diagnosed with glaucoma and a 24-2 mean deviation better than -6 dB and a healthy (H) group (45 eyes/patients) had 24-2 and 10-2 VFs and optical coherence tomography (OCT) scans twice within 4 weeks. The PSD(C24-2), based upon the central 12 points of the 24-2, was compared with the PSD(10-2). To evaluate central damage (CD) in G eyes with normal PSD(C24-2) values, a post hoc analysis was combined with a CD reference standard (CD-RS), which was based upon an objective, topographic comparison between abnormal points on the 10-2 VF and OCT probability maps. RESULTS: The 115 PSD(C24-2) and PSD(10-2) values were significantly correlated (Spearman correclation coefficient: rho = 0.55; P < .001) and the number of G eyes (19) identified as abnormal by the PSD(C24-2) was not significantly different from the number (22) identified by the PSD(10-2) (P = .15). However, based upon the CD-RS, 44 of 70 G eyes were classified as abnormal. The PSD(C24-2) missed 27 (61%) of these 44 eyes, and the PSD(10-2) missed 23 (52%) of these eyes. Post hoc analysis revealed clear CD in most of these eyes. CONCLUSION: Neither the PSD(C24-2) nor the PSD(10-2) metric is good measure of early CD. Instead we recommend a topographic approach based upon OCT probability maps and a 10-2 VF.
Authors: Young Kook Kim; Ahnul Ha; Kyeong Ik Na; Hae Jin Kim; Jin Wook Jeoung; Ki Ho Park Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2017-04-10 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Ilana Traynis; Carlos G De Moraes; Ali S Raza; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Robert Ritch; Donald C Hood Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Aakriti Garg; Donald C Hood; Noelle Pensec; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Dana M Blumberg Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2018-07-25 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Donald C Hood; Ali S Raza; Carlos Gustavo V de Moraes; Jeffrey G Odel; Vivienne C Greenstein; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Robert Ritch Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-02-16 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Emmanouil Tsamis; Nikhil K Bommakanti; Ashley Sun; Kaveri A Thakoor; Carlos Gustavo De Moraes; Donald C Hood Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2020-03-18 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Jeffrey M Liebmann; Donald C Hood; Carlos Gustavo de Moraes; Dana M Blumberg; Noga Harizman; Yocheved S Kresch; Emmanouil Tsamis; George A Cioffi Journal: J Glaucoma Date: 2022-02-28 Impact factor: 2.290
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
Authors: Tutul Chakravarti; Mohamad Moghadam; James A Proudfoot; Robert N Weinreb; Christopher Bowd; Linda M Zangwill Journal: J Glaucoma Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 2.290
Authors: Emmanouil Tsamis; Sol La Bruna; Ari Leshno; Carlos Gustavo De Moraes; Donald Hood Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2022-03-02 Impact factor: 3.283