advertisement
Abstract #94735 Published in IGR 22-2
Standard reliability and gaze tracking metrics in glaucoma and glaucoma suspects
Camp AS; Long CP; Patella VM; Proudfoot JA; Weinreb RNAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology 2022; 234: 91-98
PURPOSE: To compare standard reliability metrics and gaze tracking (GT) metrics on the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA). DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. METHODS: SETTING: VA Medical Center, San Diego. PATIENT POPULATION: 494 glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patients that had an HFA 24-2 SITA Fast visual field (VF) performed in both eyes. OBSERVATION: Standard reliability metrics (fixation loss [FL], false positive [FP], and false negative [FN]) were compared to GT metrics (deviations 1-2 degrees [M1], deviations 3-5 degrees [M3], deviations >6 degrees [M6], and tracking failure frequency [TFF]). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Spearman's rank-based correlation coefficient and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves between standard and GT reliability metrics. RESULTS: The 95 percentile limits for GT metrics were 66.7% for M1, 67.5% for M3, 49.5% for M6, and 79.8% for TFF. There were statistically significant correlations between standard and GT reliability metrics using the 95 percentile as a binary cutoff for GT metrics. However, low Spearman correlation values and AUROC calculations suggest little clinical significance of the associations. FN increased as VF severity worsened (p<0.001). M6 was lower in eyes with mild compared to moderate and advanced VF loss (p=0.012). CONCLUSIONS: GT metrics do not have a clinically significant association with standard reliability metrics. Both FN and M6 are influenced by VF severity. Aggregate GT metrics do not aid in reliability assessment. These findings suggest that GT metrics may provide an alternative or complementary measure of VF reliability.
Hamilton Glaucoma Center, Shiley Eye Institute, and Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology, University of California San Diego. Electronic address: a1camp@health.ucsd.edu.
Full articleClassification:
6.6.2 Automated (Part of: 6 Clinical examination methods > 6.6 Visual field examination and other visual function tests)
6.6.3 Special methods (e.g. color, contrast, SWAP etc.) (Part of: 6 Clinical examination methods > 6.6 Visual field examination and other visual function tests)
