[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
May 1988

A Comparison of Experienced Clinical Observers and Statistical Tests in Detection of Progressive Visual Field Loss in Glaucoma Using Automated Perimetry

Author Affiliations

From the Scheie Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (Dr Werner, Ms Bishop, and Mr Koelle); the Department of Ophthalmology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Dr Douglas); the Department of Ophthalmology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia (Dr LeBlanc); the Department of Ophthalmology, University of Washington, Seattle (Dr Mills); the Department of Ophthalmology and Tufts-New England Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston (Dr Schwartz); the Department of Ophthalmology, University of Colorado, Denver (Dr Whalen); and the Illinois Eye and Ear Infirmary, University of Illinois, Chicago (Dr Wilensky).

Arch Ophthalmol. 1988;106(5):619-623. doi:10.1001/archopht.1988.01060130673024
Abstract

• The visual fields of 30 patients (subjects) with glaucoma were sent to six experienced clinicians (observers). Each subject had at least four visual field examinations on the OCTOPUS 201 automated perimeter spanning at least one year. Each observer was asked to review the visual field data of each subject and determine whether the visual fields were stable, improved, or worse over time. The visual field data were then analyzed using six different statistical models. In only 15 of the 30 subjects did at least five of the six human observers agree on the behavior of the visual field. Agreement among the statistical models was better, with at least five of the six models agreeing on 22 of the 30 subjects. It was concluded that there is, at present, no validated technique for detecting progressive visual field loss in glaucoma using automated perimetry when relatively few visual fields are available for analysis.

References
1.
Fankhauser F, Bebie H:  Threshold fluctuations, interpolations and spatial resolution in perimetry . Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser 1979;19:295-309.
2.
Flammer J, Drance SM, Schulzer M:  Covariates of the long-term fluctuation of the differential light threshold . Arch Ophthalmol 1984;102:880-882.Article
3.
Flammer J:  Fluctuations in computerized perimetry , in Whalen WR, Spaeth GL (eds): Computerized Visual Fields: What They Are and How to Use Them . Thorofare, NJ, Slack Inc, 1985, pp 47-58.
4.
Flammer J, Drance SM, Fankhauser F, et al:  Differential light threshold in automated static perimetry factors influencing short-term fluctuation . Arch Ophthalmol 1984;102:876-879.Article
5.
Flammer J, Drance SM, Zulauf M:  Differential light threshold short- and long-term fluctuation in patients with glaucoma, normal controls, and patients with suspected glaucoma . Arch Ophthalmol 1984;102:704-706.Article
6.
Wilensky JT, Joondeph BC:  Variation in visual field measurements with an automated perimeter . Am J Ophthalmol 1984;97:328-331.
7.
Crick RP, Crick JCP, Ripley LG:  Some aspects of perimetry in glaucoma . Glaucoma 1985;7:27-34.
8.
Flammer J:  Fluctuations in the visual field , in Drance SM, Anderson D (eds): Automatic Perimetry in Glaucoma . New York, Grune & Stratton, 1985, pp 161-173.
9.
Lewis RA, Johnson CA, Keltner JL, et al:  Variability of quantitative automated perimetry in normal observers . Ophthalmology 1986;93:878-881.Article
10.
Katz J, Sommer A:  Asymmetry and variation in the normal hill of vision . Arch Ophthalmol 1986;104:65-68.Article
11.
Brenton RS, Argus WA:  Fluctuations on the Humphrey and OCTOPUS perimeters . Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1987;28:767-771.
12.
Gloor B, Schmied U, Fassler A:  Changes of glaucomatous field defects, degree of accuracy of measurements with the automatic perimeter OCTOPUS . Int Ophthalmol 1980;3:5-10.Article
13.
Bebie H, Fankhauser F:  Statistical program for the analysis of perimetric data . Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser 1981;26:9-10.
14.
Gloor BP, Schmied U, Fassler A:  Changes of glaucomatous field defects, analysis of OCTOPUS fields with programme Delta . Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser 1981;26:11-15.
15.
Bebie H, Fankhauser F: Delta Manual . Schlieren, Switzerland, Interzeag AG, 1982.
16.
De Natale R, Glaab-Schrems E, Krieglstein GK:  The prognosis of glaucoma investigated with computerized perimetry . Doc Ophthalmol 1984;58:385-392.Article
17.
Bebie H:  Computerized techniques of visual field analysis , in Drance SM, Anderson D (eds): Automatic Perimetry in Glaucoma . New York, Grune & Stratton, 1985, pp 147-160.
18.
Holmin C, Krakau CET:  Regression analysis of the central visual field in chronic glaucoma cases: A follow-up study using automated perimetry . Acta Ophthalmol 1982;60:267-274.Article
19.
Krakau CET:  Separation of background and defect in automatic perimetry . Acta Ophthalmol 1984;62:210-216.Article
20.
Holmin C, Storr-Paulsen A:  The visual field after trabeculectomy: A follow-up study using computerized perimetry . Acta Ophthalmol 1984;62:230-234.Article
21.
Holmin C, Bauer B:  Laser trabeculoplasty in open-angle glaucoma . Acta Ophthalmol 1984;62:337-341.Article
22.
Crick RP, Vogel R, Newson R, et al:  Relationship between intraocular pressure and visual field progress in chronic simple glaucoma and ocular hypertension . Glaucoma 1985;7:208-219.
23.
Mikelberg FS, Schulzer M, Drance SM, et al:  The rate of progression of scotomas in glaucoma . Am J Ophthalmol 1986;101:1-6.
24.
Wu DC, Schwartz B, Nagin P:  Trend analysis of automated visual fields . Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser 1987;49:175-189.
25.
Haley MJ, Patella VM, Wong MM: Statpac User's Guide . San Leandro, Calif, Allergan Humphrey, 1986.
26.
Gloor BP, Vokt BA:  Long-term fluctuation versus actual field loss in glaucoma patients . Dev Ophthalmol 1985;12:48-69.
27.
Hirsch J:  Statistical analysis in computerized perimetry , in Whalen WR, Spaeth GL (eds): Computerized Visual Fields: What They Are and How to Use Them . Thorofare, NJ, Slack Inc, 1985, pp 309-344.
28.
Schultz JS, Werner EB, Krupin T, et al:  Intraocular pressure and visual field defects following argon laser trabeculoplasty in chronic open-angle glaucoma . Ophthalmology 1987;94:553-557.Article
29.
Wilson R, Walker AM, Dueker DK, et al:  Risk factors for rate of progression of glaucomatous visual field loss: A computer-based analysis . Arch Ophthalmol 1982;100:737-741.Article
30.
Keltner JL, Johnson CA:  Effectiveness of automated perimetry in following glaucomatous visual field progression . Ophthalmology 1982;89:247-254.Article
31.
Traverso CE, Fellman RL, Spaeth GL, et al:  Factors affecting the results of argon laser trabeculoplasty in open-angle glaucoma . Ophthalmic Surg 1986;17:554-559.
32.
Flammer J, Drance SM:  The effect of a number of glaucoma medications on the differential light threshold . Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser 1983;35:145-148.
33.
Heijl A, Bengtsson B:  The short-term effect of laser trabeculoplasty on the glaucomatous visual field: A prospective study using computerized perimetry . Acta Ophthalmol 1984;62:705-714.Article
34.
Flammer J, Robert Y, Gloor B:  Influence of pindolol and timolol treatment on the visual fields of glaucoma patients . J Ocular Pharm 1986;2:305-311.Article
35.
Anderson D: Perimetry With and Without Automation . St Louis, CV Mosby Co, 1987, pp 296-313.
36.
Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ: Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research , ed 2. New York, WH Freeman & Co, 1981, pp 454-616.
37.
Winer BJ: Statistical Principles in Experimental Design , ed 2. New York, McGraw-Hill International Book Co, 1971.
38.
Kolker AE, Hetherington J: Becker-Shaffer's Diagnosis and Therapy of the Glaucomas , ed 5. St Louis, CV Mosby Co, 1983, p 114.
39.
Krakau CET:  Hazards in evaluation of visual field decay . Doc Ophthalmol 1986;63:239-246.Article
40.
Gramer E, Proll M, Krieglstein GK:  Reproducibility of central visual field testing using kinetic or computerized static perimetry . Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 1980;176:374-384.Article
41.
Lichter PR:  Variability of expert observers in evaluating the optic disc . Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 1976;74:532-572.
×