Combining structural and functional testing for detection of glaucoma.

PURPOSE To assess whether the combined use of both structural and functional tests improves discrimination between healthy and glaucomatous eyes over either type of testing alone. DESIGN Observational cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS One hundred twenty-three eyes of 123 participants enrolled in the Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma Study. METHODS Because both structural and functional tests were evaluated, 2 definitions of glaucoma were used: glaucomatous visual field (VF) damage based on repeatable abnormal standard automated perimetry results (n = 43) and glaucomatous optic disc (glaucomatous optic neuropathy [GON]) based on masked assessment of optic disc stereophotographs (n = 65). Participants had scanning laser polarimetry, optical coherence tomography (OCT), and confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy imaging in addition to frequency-doubling technology (FDT) perimetry and short-wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP) testing completed within a 6-month interval. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES For each glaucoma definition, sensitivities and specificities were calculated for the best structural parameters, FDT perimetry pattern standard deviation (PSD), and SWAP PSD/glaucoma hemifield test, and then for each possible pairwise combination of one structural and one functional parameter. RESULTS The best structural parameters for discriminating between glaucoma and control eyes were nerve fiber indicator for scanning laser polarimetry, inferior average retinal nerve fiber layer thickness for OCT, and Moorfields regression classification for confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy. Sensitivities and specificities for detecting glaucomatous VF damage for scanning laser polarimetry, OCT, confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy, FDT perimetry, and SWAP were 41.9% and 98.3%, 58.1% and 98.3%, 58.1% and 84.5%, 44.2% and 98.3%, and 65.1% and 86.2%, respectively. Adding FDT perimetry to each of the best structural parameters led to a significant (P<0.05) increase in sensitivity without a significant change in specificity compared with structural parameters alone. Adding SWAP to each of the best structural parameters led to a significant increase in sensitivity and also a significant decrease in specificity compared with each structural parameter alone. CONCLUSIONS A combination of parameters from structural tests and functional tests can improve the sensitivity of glaucoma detection. The sensitivity and specificity desired for a particular clinical application will determine the selection of the particular diagnostic tests.

[1]  E. E. Hartmann,et al.  The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: a randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. , 2002, Archives of ophthalmology.

[2]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Users' guides to the medical literature. , 1993, JAMA.

[3]  Xiao-Hua Zhou,et al.  Statistical Methods in Diagnostic Medicine , 2002 .

[4]  L. Zangwill,et al.  Discriminating between normal and glaucomatous eyes using the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph, GDx Nerve Fiber Analyzer, and Optical Coherence Tomograph. , 2001, Archives of ophthalmology.

[5]  Valter Torri,et al.  Results of the European Glaucoma Prevention Study. , 2005, Ophthalmology.

[6]  F. Medeiros,et al.  Frequency doubling technology perimetry abnormalities as predictors of glaucomatous visual field loss. , 2004, American journal of ophthalmology.

[7]  L. Zangwill,et al.  Detecting early glaucoma by assessment of retinal nerve fiber layer thickness and visual function. , 2001, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[8]  P. Sample.  Short-wavelength automated perimetry: it’s role in the clinic and for understanding ganglion cell function , 2000, Progress in Retinal and Eye Research.

[9]  Chris A. Johnson,et al.  Frequency-doubling technology perimetry. , 2003, Ophthalmology clinics of North America.

[10]  R. Newcombe.  Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods. , 1998, Statistics in medicine.

[11]  J Caprioli,et al.  Discrimination between normal and glaucomatous eyes. , 1992, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[12]  C. Erb,et al.  Detection of optic neuropathy in glaucomatous eyes with normal standard visual fields using a test battery of short-wavelength automated perimetry and pattern electroretinography. , 2002, Ophthalmology (Rochester, Minn.).

[13]  J M Wild,et al.  Short wavelength automated perimetry. , 2001, Acta ophthalmologica.

[14]  M. Kass.  The ocular hypertension treatment study. , 1994, Journal of glaucoma.

[15]  T. J. van den Berg,et al.  Standard achromatic perimetry, short wavelength automated perimetry, and frequency doubling technology for detection of glaucoma damage. , 2002, Ophthalmology.

[16]  R. Weinreb,et al.  Individualized compensation of anterior segment birefringence during scanning laser polarimetry. , 2002, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[17]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Users' guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. , 1994, JAMA.

[18]  J. Fujimoto,et al.  Optical Coherence Tomography , 1991 .

[19]  L. Zangwill,et al.  Scanning laser polarimetry to measure the nerve fiber layer of normal and glaucomatous eyes. , 1995, American journal of ophthalmology.

[20]  A J Adams,et al.  Optimum Parameters for Short‐Wavelength Automated Perimetry , 1996, Journal of glaucoma.

[21]  B. Chauhan,et al.  Longitudinal changes in the visual field and optic disc in glaucoma , 2005, Progress in Retinal and Eye Research.

[22]  A. Coleman,et al.  Comparison of optic nerve imaging methods to distinguish normal eyes from those with glaucoma. , 2002, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[23]  Chris A. Johnson,et al.  Structure and function evaluation (SAFE): I. criteria for glaucomatous visual field loss using standard automated perimetry (SAP) and short wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP). , 2002, American journal of ophthalmology.

[24]  C. Johnson,et al.  Blue-on-yellow perimetry can predict the development of glaucomatous visual field loss. , 1993, Archives of ophthalmology.

[25]  G. Wollstein,et al.  Identification of early glaucoma cases with the scanning laser ophthalmoscope. , 1998, Ophthalmology.

[26]  I. Scott,et al.  Expert agreement in evaluating the optic disc for glaucoma. , 1992, Ophthalmology.

[27]  C. Erb,et al.  Short wavelength automated perimetry, frequency doubling technology perimetry, and pattern electroretinography for prediction of progressive glaucomatous standard visual field defects. , 2002, Ophthalmology.

[28]  F. Medeiros,et al.  Comparison of the GDx VCC scanning laser polarimeter, HRT II confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope, and stratus OCT optical coherence tomograph for the detection of glaucoma. , 2004, Archives of ophthalmology.

[29]  Correlation Between Frequency Doubling Technology and Heidelberg Retina Tomograph , 2005, Journal of glaucoma.

[30]  P A Sample,et al.  Short-wavelength automated perimetry without lens density testing. , 1994, American journal of ophthalmology.

[31]  P. Sample.  What does functional testing tell us about optic nerve damage? , 2001, Survey of ophthalmology.

[32]  P A Sample,et al.  Visual function-specific perimetry for indirect comparison of different ganglion cell populations in glaucoma. , 2000, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[33]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: III. How to Use an Article About a Diagnostic Test: B. What Are the Results and Will They Help Me In Caring for My Patients? , 1994 .

[34]  A. Sommer,et al.  Intraobserver and interobserver agreement in measurement of optic disc characteristics. , 1988, Ophthalmology.

[35]  R. Weinreb.  Laser scanning tomography to diagnose and monitor glaucoma. , 1993, Current opinion in ophthalmology.