Classification and Statistical Trend Analysis in Detecting Glaucomatous Visual Field Progression

Aim. To evaluate the agreement between different methods in detection of glaucomatous visual field progression using two classification-based methods and four statistical approaches based on trend analysis. Methods. This is a retrospective and longitudinal study. Twenty Caucasian patients (mean age...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Cristiana Valente, Elisa D’Alessandro, Michele Iester
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Hindawi Limited 2019-01-01
Series:Journal of Ophthalmology
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/1583260
id doaj-1602f115a5394da2b3d26f7b78c8d542
record_format Article
spelling doaj-1602f115a5394da2b3d26f7b78c8d5422020-11-24T21:29:52ZengHindawi LimitedJournal of Ophthalmology2090-004X2090-00582019-01-01201910.1155/2019/15832601583260Classification and Statistical Trend Analysis in Detecting Glaucomatous Visual Field ProgressionCristiana Valente0Elisa D’Alessandro1Michele Iester2Anatomical-Clinical Laboratory for Functional Diagnosis and Treatment of Glaucoma and Neuro-ophthalmology, Eye Clinic, DiNOGMI, University of Genoa, IRCCS Ospedale Policinico San Martino, Genoa, Viale Benedetto XV 5, 16132 Genoa, ItalyAnatomical-Clinical Laboratory for Functional Diagnosis and Treatment of Glaucoma and Neuro-ophthalmology, Eye Clinic, DiNOGMI, University of Genoa, IRCCS Ospedale Policinico San Martino, Genoa, Viale Benedetto XV 5, 16132 Genoa, ItalyAnatomical-Clinical Laboratory for Functional Diagnosis and Treatment of Glaucoma and Neuro-ophthalmology, Eye Clinic, DiNOGMI, University of Genoa, IRCCS Ospedale Policinico San Martino, Genoa, Viale Benedetto XV 5, 16132 Genoa, ItalyAim. To evaluate the agreement between different methods in detection of glaucomatous visual field progression using two classification-based methods and four statistical approaches based on trend analysis. Methods. This is a retrospective and longitudinal study. Twenty Caucasian patients (mean age 73.8 ± 13.43 years) with open-angle glaucoma were recruited in the study. Each visual field was assessed by Humphrey Field Analyzer, program SITA standard 30-2 or 24-2 (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, CA). Full threshold strategy was also accepted for baseline tests. Progression was analyzed by using Hodapp–Parrish–Anderson classification and the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study visual field defect score. For the statistical analysis, linear regression (r2) was calculated for mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), and visual field index (VFI), and when it was significant, each series of visual field was considered progressive. We also used Progressor to look for a significant progression of each visual field series. The agreement between methods, based on statistical analysis and classification, was evaluated using a weighted kappa statistic. Results. Thirty-eight visual field series were analyzed. The mean follow-up time was 6.2 ± 1.53 years (mean ± standard deviation). At baseline, the mean MD was −7.34 ± 7.18 dB; at the end of the follow-up, the mean MD was −9.25 ± 8.65 dB; this difference was statistically significant (p<0.001). The agreement to detect progression was fair between all methods based on statistical analysis and classification except for PSD r2. A substantial agreement (κ = 0.698 ± 0.126) was found between MD r2 and VFI r2. With the use of all the statistical analysis, there was a better time-saving. Conclusions. The best agreement to detect progression was found between MD r2 and VFI r2. VFI r2 showed the best agreement with all the other methods. GPA2 can help ophthalmologists to detect glaucoma progression and to help in treatment decisions. PSD r2 was the worse method to detect progression.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/1583260
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Cristiana Valente
Elisa D’Alessandro
Michele Iester
spellingShingle Cristiana Valente
Elisa D’Alessandro
Michele Iester
Classification and Statistical Trend Analysis in Detecting Glaucomatous Visual Field Progression
Journal of Ophthalmology
author_facet Cristiana Valente
Elisa D’Alessandro
Michele Iester
author_sort Cristiana Valente
title Classification and Statistical Trend Analysis in Detecting Glaucomatous Visual Field Progression
title_short Classification and Statistical Trend Analysis in Detecting Glaucomatous Visual Field Progression
title_full Classification and Statistical Trend Analysis in Detecting Glaucomatous Visual Field Progression
title_fullStr Classification and Statistical Trend Analysis in Detecting Glaucomatous Visual Field Progression
title_full_unstemmed Classification and Statistical Trend Analysis in Detecting Glaucomatous Visual Field Progression
title_sort classification and statistical trend analysis in detecting glaucomatous visual field progression
publisher Hindawi Limited
series Journal of Ophthalmology
issn 2090-004X
2090-0058
publishDate 2019-01-01
description Aim. To evaluate the agreement between different methods in detection of glaucomatous visual field progression using two classification-based methods and four statistical approaches based on trend analysis. Methods. This is a retrospective and longitudinal study. Twenty Caucasian patients (mean age 73.8 ± 13.43 years) with open-angle glaucoma were recruited in the study. Each visual field was assessed by Humphrey Field Analyzer, program SITA standard 30-2 or 24-2 (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, CA). Full threshold strategy was also accepted for baseline tests. Progression was analyzed by using Hodapp–Parrish–Anderson classification and the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study visual field defect score. For the statistical analysis, linear regression (r2) was calculated for mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), and visual field index (VFI), and when it was significant, each series of visual field was considered progressive. We also used Progressor to look for a significant progression of each visual field series. The agreement between methods, based on statistical analysis and classification, was evaluated using a weighted kappa statistic. Results. Thirty-eight visual field series were analyzed. The mean follow-up time was 6.2 ± 1.53 years (mean ± standard deviation). At baseline, the mean MD was −7.34 ± 7.18 dB; at the end of the follow-up, the mean MD was −9.25 ± 8.65 dB; this difference was statistically significant (p<0.001). The agreement to detect progression was fair between all methods based on statistical analysis and classification except for PSD r2. A substantial agreement (κ = 0.698 ± 0.126) was found between MD r2 and VFI r2. With the use of all the statistical analysis, there was a better time-saving. Conclusions. The best agreement to detect progression was found between MD r2 and VFI r2. VFI r2 showed the best agreement with all the other methods. GPA2 can help ophthalmologists to detect glaucoma progression and to help in treatment decisions. PSD r2 was the worse method to detect progression.
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/1583260
work_keys_str_mv AT cristianavalente classificationandstatisticaltrendanalysisindetectingglaucomatousvisualfieldprogression
AT elisadalessandro classificationandstatisticaltrendanalysisindetectingglaucomatousvisualfieldprogression
AT micheleiester classificationandstatisticaltrendanalysisindetectingglaucomatousvisualfieldprogression
_version_ 1725965214983127040