advertisement
Abstract #51899 Published in IGR 14-4
An Evidence-Based Review of Prognostic Factors for Glaucomatous Visual Field Progression
Ernest PJ; Schouten JS; Beckers HJ; Hendrikse F; Prins MH; Webers CAOphthalmology 2013; 120: 512-519
PURPOSE: To examine which prognostic factors are associated with glaucomatous visual field progression. DESIGN: Knowledge of prognostic factors helps clinicians to select patients at risk of glaucomatous visual field progression and intensify their treatment. METHODS: By consulting relevant databases, we identified 2733 articles published up to September 2010, of which 85 articles investigating prognostic factors for visual field progression in patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) were eligible. We summarized results for each factor in tables, noting the direction of the association between the prognostic factor and progression, and the accompanying P value. Four authors, working blind to the factors, independently judged the extent to which a prognostic factor was associated with glaucomatous visual field progression. If there were different associations for normal-tension glaucoma (NTG) studies, they were judged separately. Consensus was reached during group meetings. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measure of this review article is the ranking of a factor in the list of 103 presumed prognostic factors for glaucomatous visual field progression. These outcomes have been reported in the results section of the Abstract. RESULTS: A total of 103 different prognostic factors were investigated in 85 articles. The following factors were clearly associated with glaucomatous visual field progression: age, disc hemorrhages (for NTG), baseline visual field loss, baseline intraocular pressure (IOP), and exfoliation syndrome. An association was unlikely for family history of glaucoma, atherosclerosis, systemic hypertension, visual acuity, sex (for NTG), systolic blood pressure, myopic refractive error (for NTG), and Raynaud's phenomenon. CONCLUSIONS: The factors we found clearly associated with progression could be used in clinical practice and for developing clinical prediction models. For many other factors, further research is necessary. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.
University Eye Clinic Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: p.j.g.ernest@gmail.com.
Full articleClassification:
6.20 Progression (Part of: 6 Clinical examination methods)
6.6.2 Automated (Part of: 6 Clinical examination methods > 6.6 Visual field examination and other visual function tests)
