Comparison of Analytic Algorithms for Detecting Glaucomatous Visual Field Loss

Joanne Katz, Alfred Sommer, Douglas E. Gaasterland, Douglas R. Anderson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The sensitivity and specificity of alternate analytic strategies for recognizing glaucomatous visual field loss from automated threshold perimetry (C-30-2 test of the Humphrey Field Analyzer) were compared among one eye each of 106 patients with glaucoma and 249 normal subjects. Algorithms included commercially available global indexes and cross-meridional differences (Statpac 1 and Statpac 2), as well as cross-meridional and cluster analyses that were developed independently for natural history studies and clinical trials. The sensitivity of most algorithms was high, except for those that used only diffuse loss as an indicator of abnormality. Specificity was acceptably high for all algorithms. Subjects who failed to meet the manufacturer's standard for reliability had much reduced specificity, but sensitivity was also affected. Algorithms that were based on any of the alternate definitions of localized reduction in retinal sensitivity performed equally well, which suggests that any of these approaches is useful in searching for glaucomatous visual loss as typified by this database. Availability, familiarity, and convenience may govern the selection of any one analytic approach for use in a particular setting.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1684-1689
Number of pages6
JournalArchives of Ophthalmology
Volume109
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - 1991

Fingerprint

Visual Fields
Sensitivity and Specificity
Visual Field Tests
Natural History
Glaucoma
Cluster Analysis
Clinical Trials
Databases

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Comparison of Analytic Algorithms for Detecting Glaucomatous Visual Field Loss. / Katz, Joanne; Sommer, Alfred; Gaasterland, Douglas E.; Anderson, Douglas R.

In: Archives of Ophthalmology, Vol. 109, No. 12, 1991, p. 1684-1689.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Katz, Joanne ; Sommer, Alfred ; Gaasterland, Douglas E. ; Anderson, Douglas R. / Comparison of Analytic Algorithms for Detecting Glaucomatous Visual Field Loss. In: Archives of Ophthalmology. 1991 ; Vol. 109, No. 12. pp. 1684-1689.
@article{dd232f812f314b79b00e733e8a732773,
title = "Comparison of Analytic Algorithms for Detecting Glaucomatous Visual Field Loss",
abstract = "The sensitivity and specificity of alternate analytic strategies for recognizing glaucomatous visual field loss from automated threshold perimetry (C-30-2 test of the Humphrey Field Analyzer) were compared among one eye each of 106 patients with glaucoma and 249 normal subjects. Algorithms included commercially available global indexes and cross-meridional differences (Statpac 1 and Statpac 2), as well as cross-meridional and cluster analyses that were developed independently for natural history studies and clinical trials. The sensitivity of most algorithms was high, except for those that used only diffuse loss as an indicator of abnormality. Specificity was acceptably high for all algorithms. Subjects who failed to meet the manufacturer's standard for reliability had much reduced specificity, but sensitivity was also affected. Algorithms that were based on any of the alternate definitions of localized reduction in retinal sensitivity performed equally well, which suggests that any of these approaches is useful in searching for glaucomatous visual loss as typified by this database. Availability, familiarity, and convenience may govern the selection of any one analytic approach for use in a particular setting.",
author = "Joanne Katz and Alfred Sommer and Gaasterland, {Douglas E.} and Anderson, {Douglas R.}",
year = "1991",
doi = "10.1001/archopht.1991.01080120068028",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "109",
pages = "1684--1689",
journal = "JAMA Ophthalmology",
issn = "2168-6165",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of Analytic Algorithms for Detecting Glaucomatous Visual Field Loss

AU - Katz, Joanne

AU - Sommer, Alfred

AU - Gaasterland, Douglas E.

AU - Anderson, Douglas R.

PY - 1991

Y1 - 1991

N2 - The sensitivity and specificity of alternate analytic strategies for recognizing glaucomatous visual field loss from automated threshold perimetry (C-30-2 test of the Humphrey Field Analyzer) were compared among one eye each of 106 patients with glaucoma and 249 normal subjects. Algorithms included commercially available global indexes and cross-meridional differences (Statpac 1 and Statpac 2), as well as cross-meridional and cluster analyses that were developed independently for natural history studies and clinical trials. The sensitivity of most algorithms was high, except for those that used only diffuse loss as an indicator of abnormality. Specificity was acceptably high for all algorithms. Subjects who failed to meet the manufacturer's standard for reliability had much reduced specificity, but sensitivity was also affected. Algorithms that were based on any of the alternate definitions of localized reduction in retinal sensitivity performed equally well, which suggests that any of these approaches is useful in searching for glaucomatous visual loss as typified by this database. Availability, familiarity, and convenience may govern the selection of any one analytic approach for use in a particular setting.

AB - The sensitivity and specificity of alternate analytic strategies for recognizing glaucomatous visual field loss from automated threshold perimetry (C-30-2 test of the Humphrey Field Analyzer) were compared among one eye each of 106 patients with glaucoma and 249 normal subjects. Algorithms included commercially available global indexes and cross-meridional differences (Statpac 1 and Statpac 2), as well as cross-meridional and cluster analyses that were developed independently for natural history studies and clinical trials. The sensitivity of most algorithms was high, except for those that used only diffuse loss as an indicator of abnormality. Specificity was acceptably high for all algorithms. Subjects who failed to meet the manufacturer's standard for reliability had much reduced specificity, but sensitivity was also affected. Algorithms that were based on any of the alternate definitions of localized reduction in retinal sensitivity performed equally well, which suggests that any of these approaches is useful in searching for glaucomatous visual loss as typified by this database. Availability, familiarity, and convenience may govern the selection of any one analytic approach for use in a particular setting.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0026410735&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0026410735&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/archopht.1991.01080120068028

DO - 10.1001/archopht.1991.01080120068028

M3 - Article

VL - 109

SP - 1684

EP - 1689

JO - JAMA Ophthalmology

JF - JAMA Ophthalmology

SN - 2168-6165

IS - 12

ER -