More Accurate Modeling of Visual Field Progression in Glaucoma: ANSWERS.

PURPOSE To validate a method for visual field (VF) progression analysis, called ANSWERS (Analysis with Non-Stationary Weibull Error Regression and Spatial Enhancement), which takes into account increasing measurement variability as glaucoma progresses and spatial correlation among test locations. METHODS ANSWERS outputs both a global index of progression and a pointwise estimate of rate of change at each VF location. ANSWERS was compared with linear regression of mean deviation (MD) and permutation of pointwise linear regression (PoPLR). Visual field series of up to 2 years from the United Kingdom Glaucoma Treatment Study were used. This consists of 9104 Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm Standard 24-2 VFs. ANSWERS and PoPLR rate of change were used to predict the VF at the next visit using subseries that were within 7, 13, 18, or 22 months from the baseline. The comparison was carried out on the statistical sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of predicting future VF. RESULTS Across all subseries, statistical sensitivity of ANSWERS in detecting VF deterioration was significantly better than the linear regression of MD and PoPLR, especially in short time series. Prediction accuracy of ANSWERS was better than PoPLR at all series lengths, and the improvement was particularly marked in shorter series. Seventy-five percent of VF series were better predicted by ANSWERS compared with PoPLR. The average prediction error of ANSWERS was 15% lower than that of PoPLR. CONCLUSIONS ANSWERS is more sensitive to detect VF progression and predicts future VF loss better than linear regression of MD and PoPLR, especially over short observation periods. (http://www.isrctn.com number, ISRCTN96423140.).

[1]  S. Gardiner,et al.  Examination of different pointwise linear regression methods for determining visual field progression. , 2002, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[2]  Richard A. Russell,et al.  The United Kingdom Glaucoma Treatment Study: a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial: design and methodology. , 2013, Ophthalmology.

[3]  Richard A. Russell,et al.  Detecting Changes in Retinal Function: Analysis with Non-Stationary Weibull Error Regression and Spatial Enhancement (ANSWERS) , 2014, PloS one.

[4]  Visual field progression with frequency-doubling matrix perimetry and standard automated perimetry in patients with glaucoma and in healthy controls. , 2013, JAMA ophthalmology.

[5]  S. Gardiner,et al.  Nonlinear, multilevel mixed-effects approach for modeling longitudinal standard automated perimetry data in glaucoma. , 2013, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[6]  David P Crabb,et al.  A new statistical approach for quantifying change in series of retinal and optic nerve head topography images. , 2005, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[7]  Yuko Ohno,et al.  Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from Full Threshold, SITA Standard, and SITA Fast strategies. , 2002, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[8]  Chris A. Johnson,et al.  Comparison of different methods for detecting glaucomatous visual field progression. , 2003, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[9]  Richard A. Russell,et al.  Are practical recommendations practiced? A national multi-centre cross-sectional study on frequency of visual field testing in glaucoma , 2013, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[10]  P. Artes,et al.  Response variability in the visual field: comparison of optic neuritis, glaucoma, ocular hypertension, and normal eyes. , 2000, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[11]  Richard A. Russell,et al.  Latanoprost for open-angle glaucoma (UKGTS): a randomised, multicentre, placebo-controlled trial , 2015, The Lancet.

[12]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Human Brain Function , 1997 .

[13]  Paul H Artes,et al.  Visual field progression in glaucoma: estimating the overall significance of deterioration with permutation analyses of pointwise linear regression (PoPLR). , 2012, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[14]  U. Schiefer,et al.  Spatial characteristics of visual field progression determined by Monte Carlo simulation: diagnostic innovations in glaucoma study. , 2007, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[15]  D. Garway-Heath,et al.  Mapping the visual field to the optic disc in normal tension glaucoma eyes. , 2000, Ophthalmology.

[16]  A Heijl,et al.  Practical recommendations for measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma , 2008, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[17]  Martin L Hazelton,et al.  Spatial modeling of visual field data for assessing glaucoma progression. , 2013, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[18]  Richard A. Russell,et al.  The relationship between variability and sensitivity in large-scale longitudinal visual field data. , 2012, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[19]  Chris A. Johnson,et al.  Refinement of pointwise linear regression criteria for determining glaucoma progression. , 2013, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[20]  Koenraad A Vermeer,et al.  Robust and censored modeling and prediction of progression in glaucomatous visual fields. , 2013, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[21]  F W Fitzke,et al.  Early detection of visual field progression in glaucoma: a comparison of progressor and statpac 2 , 1997, The British journal of ophthalmology.