PURPOSE: To evaluate the three commercially available computerized statistical algorithms for determining progression of glaucomatous field loss in serial Humphrey fields. METHODS: Serial Humphrey fields of 102 ocular hypertensive and glaucomatous eyes were analyzed by linear regression analysis of Statpac, glaucoma change probability and Progressor Programme, and the results compared with a retrospectively determined clinical outcome. RESULTS: Linear regression analysis of Statpac identified progression in 11 field series, glaucoma change probability identified progression in 23 field series, and Progressor Programme identified progression in 27 field series. Clinical outcome identified much less-progression than any of the three algorithms, determining that only seven eyes showed deterioration. There was a wide variation of results from analysis of the same group of field series by the three different algorithms. In contrast to the other two algorithms, which detected progression in similar percentages of both ocular hypertension and glaucoma field series. Progressor Programme detected progression predominantly in glaucoma field series. CONCLUSIONS: There was a high degree of variability among the three different algorithms for determining visual field progression, and none of them correlated well with clinical impression.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the three commercially available computerized statistical algorithms for determining progression of glaucomatous field loss in serial Humphrey fields. METHODS: Serial Humphrey fields of 102 ocular hypertensive and glaucomatous eyes were analyzed by linear regression analysis of Statpac, glaucoma change probability and Progressor Programme, and the results compared with a retrospectively determined clinical outcome. RESULTS: Linear regression analysis of Statpac identified progression in 11 field series, glaucoma change probability identified progression in 23 field series, and Progressor Programme identified progression in 27 field series. Clinical outcome identified much less-progression than any of the three algorithms, determining that only seven eyes showed deterioration. There was a wide variation of results from analysis of the same group of field series by the three different algorithms. In contrast to the other two algorithms, which detected progression in similar percentages of both ocular hypertension and glaucoma field series. Progressor Programme detected progression predominantly in glaucoma field series. CONCLUSIONS: There was a high degree of variability among the three different algorithms for determining visual field progression, and none of them correlated well with clinical impression.
Authors: John L Keltner; Chris A Johnson; Richard A Levine; Juanjuan Fan; Kimberly E Cello; Michael A Kass; Mae O Gordon Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2005-09
Authors: Felipe A Medeiros; Robert N Weinreb; Grant Moore; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Christopher A Girkin; Linda M Zangwill Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2012-01-21 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Osamah J Saeedi; Tobias Elze; Loris D'Acunto; Ramya Swamy; Vikram Hegde; Surabhi Gupta; Amin Venjara; Joby Tsai; Jonathan S Myers; Sarah R Wellik; Carlos Gustavo De Moraes; Louis R Pasquale; Lucy Q Shen; Michael V Boland Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2019-02-04 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Colleen M Kummet; K D Zamba; Carrie K Doyle; Chris A Johnson; Michael Wall Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: T Aung; F T S Oen; H-T Wong; Y-H Chan; B-K Khoo; Y-P Liu; C-L Ho; J See; L H Thean; A C Viswanathan; S K L Seah; P T K Chew Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Pamela A Sample; Catherine Boden; Zuohua Zhang; John Pascual; Te-Won Lee; Linda M Zangwill; Robert N Weinreb; Jonathan G Crowston; Esther M Hoffmann; Felipe A Medeiros; Terrence Sejnowski; Michael Goldbaum Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Haogang Zhu; Richard A Russell; Luke J Saunders; Stefano Ceccon; David F Garway-Heath; David P Crabb Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-01-17 Impact factor: 3.240