Chancellery Research - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4
-
ItemNo Preview AvailableDo Additional Testing Locations Improve the Detection of Macular Perimetric Defects in Glaucoma?(ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC, 2021-12)PURPOSE: To evaluate the ability of additional central testing locations to improve detection of macular visual field (VF) defects in glaucoma. DESIGN: Prospective cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred forty healthy people and 499 patients with glaucomatous optic neuropathy (GON) were tested with a fundus tracked perimeter (CMP; CenterVue) using a 24-2 grid with 12 additional macular locations (24-2+). METHODS: Glaucomatous optic neuropathy was identified based on expert evaluation of optic nerve head photographs and OCT scans, independently of the VF. We defined macular defects as locations with measurements outside the 5% and 2% normative limits on total deviation (TD) and pattern deviation (PD) maps within the VF central 10°. Classification was based on the total number of affected macular locations (overall detection) or the largest number of affected macular locations connected in a contiguous cluster (cluster detection). Criteria based on the number of locations and cluster size were used to obtain equivalent specificity between the 24-2 grid and the 24-2+ grids, calculated using false detections in the healthy cohort. Partial areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (pAUCs) were also compared at specificities of 95% or more. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Matched specificity comparison of the ability to detect glaucomatous macular defects between the 24-2 and 24-2+ grids. RESULTS: At matched specificity, cluster detection identified more macular defects with the 24-2+ grid compared with the 24-2 grid. For example, the mean increase in percentage of detection was 8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5%-11%) and 10% (95% CI, 7%-13%) for 5% TD and PD maps, respectively, and 5% (95% CI, 2%-7%) and 6% (95% CI, 4%-8%) for the 2% TD and PD maps, respectively. Good agreement was found between the 2 grids. The improvement measured by pAUCs was also significant but generally small. The percentage of eyes with macular defects ranged from about 30% to 50%. Test time for the 24-2+ grid was longer (21% increase) for both cohorts. Between 74% and 98% of defects missed by the 24-2 grid had at least 1 location with sensitivity of < 20 dB. CONCLUSIONS: Visual field examinations with additional macular locations can improve the detection of macular defects in GON modestly without loss of specificity when appropriate criteria are selected.
-
ItemIncreased Depth, Reduced Extent, and Sharpened Edges of Visual Field Defects Measured by Compass Fundus Perimeter Compared to Humphrey Field Analyzer(ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC, 2021-10)PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare visual field results of the COMPASS fundus perimeter (CMP) and the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) in the same eyes; to compare structure-function concordance between circumpapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (Cp-RNFL) profiles and the two perimetry results; and to evaluate whether differences between the two results reflect postulated advantages of real-time eye movement compensation during perimetry. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 24-2 visual field data measured with CMP and HFA together with Cp-RNFL optical coherence tomography (OCT) scan data from 95 eyes of 65 people with glaucoma. We defined visual field locations with total deviation (TD) less than -5 dB as defective. The CMP and HFA fields were compared on measures of: spatial extent (number of defective locations); depth (TD values); and sharpness of scotomata edges (maximum TD difference between defective locations and their neighbors). Structure-function concordance between Cp-RNFL profile and respective visual field was also compared. RESULTS: Compared to the HFA, scotomata measured by CMP were of reduced spatial extent (mean difference = -3.14 locations, p < 0.001), greater depth (median TD of CMP = -17 dB versus HFA = -13 dB, p = 0.029) and steeper edges (median of maximum TD difference of CMP = 10.6 dB versus HFA = 6 dB, p < 0.001). Structure-function concordance between Cp-RNFL profile and either visual field were comparable despite the reduced scotoma spatial extent measured by CMP. CONCLUSIONS: Glaucomatous visual fields measured by CMP displayed characteristics consistent with expected effects of using real-time eye movement compensation technology compared to the widely used HFA. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: Glaucomatous visual field defects measured by the CMP are more localized, deeper, and steeper than those of the HFA.
-
ItemImproving Personalized Structure to Function Mapping From Optic Nerve Head to Visual Field.(Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, 2021-01-08)Purpose: Maps are required to relate visual field locations to optic nerve head regions. We compare individualized structure-to-function mapping (CUSTOM-MAP) to a population-derived mapping schema (POP-MAP). Methods: Maps were compared for 118 eyes with glaucomatous field loss, circumpapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (cpRNFL) thickness measured using spectral domain optical coherence tomography (OCT), and two landmarks: the optic nerve head (ONH) position relative to the fovea and the temporal raphe angle. Locations with visual field damage (total deviation < -6 dB) were mapped to 30° ONH sectors centered on the angle given by each mapping schema. The concordance between damaged function and damaged structure was determined per location for various cpRNFL damage probability levels, with the number of concordant locations divided by the total number of damaged field locations providing a concordance ratio per eye. Results: For the strictest concordance criteria (minimum cpRNFL thickness < 1% of normal), CUSTOM-MAP had higher mean concordance ratio than POP-MAP (60.5% c.f. 57.0% paired Wilcoxon, P = 0.005), with CUSTOM-MAP having a higher ratio in 43 eyes and POP-MAP having a higher ratio in 21 eyes. For all cpRNFL probability levels <20% of normal, more locations concorded for CUSTOM-MAP than POP-MAP. Inspection of the spatial patterns of differences revealed that CUSTOM-MAP often performed better in the arcuate regions, whereas POP-MAP had benefits inferior to the macula. Conclusions: Anatomic parameters required for individualized structure-function mapping are readily measured with OCT and can provide improved concordance for some eyes. Translational Relevance: Personalizing structure-function mapping may improve concordance between these measures. We provide a web-based tool for creating customized maps.
-
ItemEffects of Criterion Bias on Perimetric Sensitivity and Response Variability in Glaucoma(ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC, 2021-01)PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to isolate and quantify the effects of observer response criterion on perimetric sensitivity, response variability, and maximum response probability. METHODS: Twelve people with glaucoma were tested at three locations in the visual field (age = 47-77 years, mean deviation = -0.61 to -14.54 dB, test location Humphrey field analyzer [HFA] sensitivities = 1 to 30 dB). Frequency of seeing (FoS) curves were measured using a method of constant stimuli with two response paradigms: a "yes-no" paradigm similar to static automated perimetry and a criterion-free two interval forced choice (2IFC) paradigm. Comparison measures of sensitivity, maximum response probability, and response variability were derived from the fitted FoS curves. RESULTS: Sensitivity differences between the tasks varied widely (range = -11.3 dB to 21.6 dB) and did not correlate with visual field sensitivity nor whether the visual field location was in an area of steep sensitivity gradient within the visual field. Due to the wide variation in differences between the methods, there was no significant difference in mean sensitivity between the 2IFC task relative to the yes-no task, but a trend for higher sensitivity (mean = 1.9 dB, SD = 6.0 dB, P = 0.11). Response variability and maximum response probability did not differ between the tasks (P > 0.99 and 0.95, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Perimetric sensitivity estimates are demonstrably altered by observer response criterion but the effect varies widely and unpredictably, even within a single test. Response bias should be considered a factor in perimetric test variability and when comparing sensitivities to nonperimetric data. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: The effect of response criterion on perimetric response variability varies widely and unpredictably, even within a single test.