HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Chatterjee, A. Articles by Katz, L. J. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Chatterjee, A. Articles by Katz, L. J.

Comparison of Methods to Evaluate Visual Field Series

Glaucoma Research Center, Wills Eye Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Commercial Relationships: A. Chatterjee, None; J.S. Myers, Haag-Streit, F; B. Shue, None; J.E. Rome, None; D. Lo, None; S. Fudemberg, None; M. Pro, None; G.L. Spaeth, None; L.J. Katz, None.

Support: None.

Abstract

Purpose:To compare clinicians' evaluations, in masked fashion, of a series of Humphrey SITA Standard 24-2 visual fields (HVFs) presented by each of three

Methods:The Humphrey/Zeiss Glaucoma Progression Analysis (GPA), the Octopus EyeSuite analysis, and raw serial HVF printouts.Methods: From a large field database, 38 glaucoma subjects who had at least five reliable (fewer than 40% false positives, false negatives, and fixation losses) HVFs and visual acuity greater than 20/50, were selected. Two glaucoma specialists evaluated the fields from the more reliable eye for progression requiring therapy advancement, using the GPA, EyeSuite, and serial HVF printout series. A subset of five fields appeared twice in each of the three sets to assess intraobserver repeatability. Results were compared by inter/intraobserver agreement, Hodapp-Parrish-Anderson (HPA) criteria, and time to complete analysis.

Results:Interobserver agreement was greatest for EyeSuite (86%), followed by GPA (83%) and serial HVFs (65%). In comparison with HPA criteria, agreement was EyeSuite (74%), GPA (73%) and serial HVFs (65%). EyeSuite agreement with HPA increases to 77% if a 1.0dB/yr cutoff is applied for progression. The average time to complete all 43 assessments (minutes), was EyeSuite 7.5, GPA 11.9, and serial HVFs 16.8.

Conclusions:Similar rates of agreement among measures were seen for all modalities of visual field interpretation. Physician interpretation was quickest with the EyeSuite software, followed by the GPA, with similar results to analysis of serial field data.

Keywords: visual fields • perimetry • clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: systems/equipment/techniques

© 2010, The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc., all rights reserved. Permission to republish any abstract or part of an abstract in any form must be obtained in writing from the ARVO Office prior to publication.