advertisement
Abstract #55320 Published in IGR 15-4
Detection of progression of glaucomatous visual field damage using the point-wise method with the binomial test
Karakawa A; Murata H; Hirasawa H; Mayama C; Asaoka RPLoS ONE 2013; 8: e78630
PURPOSE: To compare the performance of newly proposed point-wise linear regression (PLR) with the binomial test (binomial PLR) against mean deviation (MD) trend analysis and permutation analyses of PLR (PoPLR), in detecting global visual field (VF) progression in glaucoma. METHODS: 15 VFs (Humphrey Field Analyzer, SITA standard, 24-2) were collected from 96 eyes of 59 open angle glaucoma patients (6.0 ± 1.5 [mean ± standard deviation] years). Using the total deviation of each point on the 2(nd) to 16(th) VFs (VF2-16), linear regression analysis was carried out. The numbers of VF test points with a significant trend at various probability levels (p<0.025, 0.05, 0.075 and 0.1) were investigated with the binomial test (one-side). A VF series was defined as "significant" if the median p-value from the binomial test was <0.025. Similarly, the progression analysis was carried out using only second to sixth VFs (VF2-6). The performance of each method was evaluated using the 'consistency measures'; proportion both significant (PBS): both VF series (VF2-6 and VF2-16) were "significant", proportion both were not significant (PBNS): both were "not significant", proportion inconsistently significant (PIS): VF2-16 was "not significant" but VF2-6 was "significant". A similar analysis was carried out using VF2-7 and VF2-15 series, and the performance was compared with MD trend analysis and PoPLR. RESULTS: The PBS of the binomial PLR method (0.14 to 0.86) was significantly higher than MD trend analysis (0.04 to 0.89) and PoPLR (0.09 to 0.93). The PIS of the proposed method (0.0 to 0.17) was significantly lower than the MD approach (0.0 to 0.67) and PoPLR (0.07 to 0.33). The PBNS of the three approaches were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: The binomial BLR method gives more consistent results than MD trend analysis and PoPLR, hence it will be helpful as a tool to 'flag' possible VF deterioration.
Full article
Classification:
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)