Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    1
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Effective Dynamic Ranges for Glaucomatous Visual Field Progression With Standard Automated Perimetry and Stimulus Sizes III and V

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          It has been shown that threshold estimates below approximately 20 dB have little effect on the ability to detect visual field progression in glaucoma. We aimed to compare stimulus size V to stimulus size III, in areas of visual damage, to confirm these findings by using (1) a different dataset, (2) different techniques of progression analysis, and (3) an analysis to evaluate the effect of censoring on mean deviation (MD).

          Methods

          In the Iowa Variability in Perimetry Study, 120 glaucoma subjects were tested every 6 months for 4 years with size III SITA Standard and size V Full Threshold. Progression was determined with three complementary techniques: pointwise linear regression (PLR), permutation of PLR, and linear regression of the MD index. All analyses were repeated on “censored'' datasets in which threshold estimates below a given criterion value were set to equal the criterion value.

          Results

          Our analyses confirmed previous observations that threshold estimates below 20 dB contribute much less to visual field progression than estimates above this range. These findings were broadly similar with stimulus sizes III and V.

          Conclusions

          Censoring of threshold values < 20 dB has relatively little impact on the rates of visual field progression in patients with mild to moderate glaucoma. Size V, which has lower retest variability, performs at least as well as size III for longitudinal glaucoma progression analysis and appears to have a larger useful dynamic range owing to the upper sensitivity limit being higher.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from Full Threshold, SITA Standard, and SITA Fast strategies.

          To investigate the distributions of threshold estimates with the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithms (SITA) Standard, SITA Fast, and the Full Threshold algorithm (Humphrey Field Analyzer; Zeiss-Humphrey Instruments, Dublin, CA) and to compare the pointwise test-retest variability of these strategies. One eye of 49 patients (mean age, 61.6 years; range, 22-81) with glaucoma (Mean Deviation mean, -7.13 dB; range, +1.8 to -23.9 dB) was examined four times with each of the three strategies. The mean and median SITA Standard and SITA Fast threshold estimates were compared with a "best available" estimate of sensitivity (mean results of three Full Threshold tests). Pointwise 90% retest limits (5th and 95th percentiles of retest thresholds) were derived to assess the reproducibility of individual threshold estimates. The differences between the threshold estimates of the SITA and Full Threshold strategies were largest ( approximately 3 dB) for midrange sensitivities ( approximately 15 dB). The threshold distributions of SITA were considerably different from those of the Full Threshold strategy. The differences remained of similar magnitude when the analysis was repeated on a subset of 20 locations that are examined early during the course of a Full Threshold examination. With sensitivities above 25 dB, both SITA strategies exhibited lower test-retest variability than the Full Threshold strategy. Below 25 dB, the retest intervals of SITA Standard were slightly smaller than those of the Full Threshold strategy, whereas those of SITA Fast were larger. SITA Standard may be superior to the Full Threshold strategy for monitoring patients with visual field loss. The greater test-retest variability of SITA Fast in areas of low sensitivity is likely to offset the benefit of even shorter test durations with this strategy. The sensitivity differences between the SITA and Full Threshold strategies may relate to factors other than reduced fatigue. They are, however, small in comparison to the test-retest variability.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The repeatability of mean defect with size III and size V standard automated perimetry.

            The mean defect (MD) of the visual field is a global statistical index used to monitor overall visual field change over time. Our goal was to investigate the relationship of MD and its variability for two clinically used strategies (Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm [SITA] standard size III and full threshold size V) in glaucoma patients and controls. We tested one eye, at random, for 46 glaucoma patients and 28 ocularly healthy subjects with Humphrey program 24-2 SITA standard for size III and full threshold for size V each five times over a 5-week period. The standard deviation of MD was regressed against the MD for the five repeated tests, and quantile regression was used to show the relationship of variability and MD. A Wilcoxon test was used to compare the standard deviations of the two testing methods following quantile regression. Both types of regression analysis showed increasing variability with increasing visual field damage. Quantile regression showed modestly smaller MD confidence limits. There was a 15% decrease in SD with size V in glaucoma patients (P = 0.10) and a 12% decrease in ocularly healthy subjects (P = 0.08). The repeatability of size V MD appears to be slightly better than size III SITA testing. When using MD to determine visual field progression, a change of 1.5 to 4 decibels (dB) is needed to be outside the normal 95% confidence limits, depending on the size of the stimulus and the amount of visual field damage.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Examination of different pointwise linear regression methods for determining visual field progression.

              To compare the specificity and sensitivity of several different methods for using pointwise linear regression (PLR) to detect progression (deterioration) in visual fields. First, theoretical results were derived to predict which of the considered PLR methods would be the most specific and hence the least sensitive. Then, a "Virtual Eye" simulation model was developed that simulates series of sensitivity readings for a point over time. The model adds normally distributed noise (estimated from published results) to the sensitivity at each point to produce a series of fields to be analyzed using each method. Stable and deteriorating eyes were simulated, with the latter defined to have a noise-free loss of 2 dB/y at a significant cluster of points over the series. The most sensitive method tested was to flag a visual field as progressing if it had a point that exhibited a statistically significant slope (at the 1% level) of at least -1 dB/y in the sensitivity. The most specific was a new "Three-Omitting" method that is being proposed, using two confirmation fields in a novel way. Current methods of using confirmation fields to verify a significant slope incorrectly flagged up to twice as many stable eyes as having progressing fields as did our new method. Using the new proposed PLR method is recommended in preference to current PLR methods in any applications when a high degree of specificity is the main priority.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci
                Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci
                iovs
                Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci
                IOVS
                Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science
                The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology
                0146-0404
                1552-5783
                January 2018
                : 59
                : 1
                : 439-445
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Ophthalmology, University of Iowa, College of Medicine, Veterans Administration Hospital, Iowa City, Iowa, United States
                [2 ]Department of Neurology, University of Iowa, College of Medicine, Veterans Administration Hospital, Iowa City, Iowa, United States
                [3 ]Department of Biostatistics, College of Public Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, United States
                [4 ]School of Health Professions, Peninsula Allied Health Centre, Plymouth University, Plymouth, Devon, United Kingdom
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Michael Wall, Department of Neurology, University of Iowa, College of Medicine, 200 Hawkins Drive, No. 2007 RCP, Iowa City, IA 52242-1053, USA; michael-wall@ 123456uiowa.edu .
                Article
                iovs-59-01-18 IOVS-17-22390
                10.1167/iovs.17-22390
                5777662
                29356822
                3e2f80da-3592-4ac1-bc28-c946e5000a74
                Copyright 2018 The Authors

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

                History
                : 8 June 2017
                : 18 December 2017
                Categories
                Glaucoma

                automated perimetry,visual field,glaucoma
                automated perimetry, visual field, glaucoma

                Comments

                Comment on this article