A Comparison of Visual Field Progression Criteria of 3 Major Glaucoma Trials in Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial Patients
| Autor: | M. Cristina Leske, Boel Bengtsson, Leslie Hyman, Ian Cunliffe, Anders Heijl, Balwantray C. Chauhan, Marc F. Lieberman |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2008 |
| Předmět: |
Male
Intraocular pressure medicine.medical_specialty Time Factors Eye disease Vision Disorders Glaucoma Sensitivity and Specificity Ophthalmology Internal medicine Optic Nerve Diseases medicine Humans Longitudinal Studies Intraocular Pressure Aged Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic business.industry Outcome measures Reproducibility of Results Middle Aged medicine.disease Intervention studies Confidence interval Visual field Treatment study Disease Progression Visual Field Tests Female Visual Fields business Glaucoma Open-Angle |
| Zdroj: | Ophthalmology. 115:1557-1565 |
| ISSN: | 0161-6420 |
| Popis: | PURPOSE: Three major glaucoma trials, all using the same Humphrey visual field tests, specified different criteria to define visual field progression. This article compares the performance of these criteria with a reference standard of unanimous classifications by 3 independent glaucoma experts. DESIGN: Longitudinal, comparative study of diagnostic criteria. PARTICIPANTS AND CONTROLS: Two hundred forty-five patients with manifest glaucoma in the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial (EMGT). METHODS: Visual field series of 1 eye of each of 245 EMGT patients were classified by 3 independent glaucoma specialists as definitely progressing, definitely nonprogressing, or neither. Field series that were classified in the first 2 categories by all 3 experts met the reference standards for the progressing and nonprogressing groups and were analyzed according to the progression criteria of the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS), the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study (CIGTS), and the EMGT. Sensitivity, specificity, time to progression, and sustainability were calculated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Progression, nonprogression, sensitivity, specificity, time to progression, and sustainability. RESULTS: Seventy-seven field series were definitely progressing, and 95 series were definitely nonprogressing. Among progressing eyes, 45 (58%) of 77 were identified using AGIS criteria, 58 (75%) of 77 were identified with CIGTS criteria, and 74 (96%) of 77 were identified with EMGT criteria; all comparisons of sensitivities were significant, simultaneous (P |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|