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

Computer-Assisted Recognition of Glaucomatous Field Loss-Reply

Arch Ophthalmol. 1988;106(6):722. doi:10.1001/archopht.1988.01060130791013

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.

Abstract

In Reply.  —STATPAC does indeed provide a plethora of quantitative data. We chose to concentrate on the summary scores, pattern standard deviation (PSD), and mean deviation (MD) because these provide the practicing ophthalmologist and screening program director with comprehensible indexes rooted in probability theory. Our major question was whether these easily grasped figures did a reasonable job in distinguishing normal subjects from those likely to have glaucomatous optic nerve damage. Our assessment was that PSD did, particularly when the subject matched the "reliability" profile of those in STATPAC's normal database.We have yet to complete similar analyses for STATPAC probability plots. These are far more difficult to approach in a rigorous, quantitative fashion. Like Heijl et al, we have encountered one or more "abnormal" points in these plots when the global indexes have been normal. But this has occurred in entirely normal subjects as well as in those suspected to

References
1.
Duggan C, Sommer A, Auer C, et al:  Automated differential threshold perimetry for detecting glaucomatous visual field loss . Am J Ophthalmol 1985;100:420-423.
2.
Sommer A, Enger C, Witt K:  Screening for glaucomatous field loss with automated threshold perimetry . Am J Ophthalmol 1987;103:681-684.
3.
Katz J, Sommer A:  A longitudinal study of the age-adjusted variability of automated visual fields . Arch Ophthalmol 1987;105:1083-1086.Article
×