The Heidelberg retina tomograph Glaucoma Probability Score: reproducibility and measurement of progression.

PURPOSE To evaluate the reproducibility of the Heidelberg retina tomograph (HRT) Glaucoma Probability Score (GPS) and assess its potential for monitoring progression. DESIGN Evaluation of diagnostic tests in a randomized, controlled clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS For reproducibility, we included 43 ocular hypertensive (OHT) and 31 glaucoma subjects. For progression, we included 198 OHT and 21 control subjects. METHODS To study reproducibility, global GPS values were generated for HRT images acquired in a test-retest study. Images were acquired at 2 visits within 6 weeks of each other, by 2 different observers. To study progression, GPS values were generated for HRT images acquired prospectively (1993-2001). Linear regression of GPS against time was performed, with progression defined as a significant negative slope (P<0.05). Criterion specificity was estimated from the number of improving subjects (significant positive slope) and the number of progressing controls. Visual field (VF) progression in the same subjects was assessed using 3-omitting pointwise linear regression of sensitivity over time. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Reproducibility of GPS was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis (mean difference, 95% limits of agreement). Progression was assessed by the number of OHT subjects identified as progressing, and by agreement with VF progression. RESULTS Reproducibility of GPS was better at its extremes (-0.01+/-0.20 for GPS 0-0.30, and 0.02+/-0.09 for GPS 0.78-1.00) than in its mid range (0.07+/-0.54 for GPS 0.30-0.78). Estimated criterion specificity ranged from 95.2% (95% confidence interval, 76.1%-99.9%) to 96.8% (93.2%-98.5%). Twenty-five OHT subjects (12.6%) progressed by GPS, with 11 of the 25 (5.6%) also progressing by VF; 26 subjects (13.1%) progressed by VF alone. CONCLUSIONS Changes in HRT GPS values between 0.30 and 0.78 should be interpreted with caution because the index has poorer reproducibility in this range. The global GPS progression algorithm performs at least as well as previously described rim area-based HRT progression strategies. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S) Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

[1]  Robert N Weinreb,et al.  Comparison of HRT-3 glaucoma probability score and subjective stereophotograph assessment for prediction of progression in glaucoma. , 2008, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[2]  D. Garway-Heath Early diagnosis in glaucoma. , 2008, Progress in brain research.

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

[4]  Robert N Weinreb,et al.  The effect of disc size and severity of disease on the diagnostic accuracy of the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph Glaucoma Probability Score. , 2007, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

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

[6]  R. Ritch,et al.  Detection of glaucoma using operator-dependent versus operator-independent classification in the Heidelberg retinal tomograph-III , 2006, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[7]  G. Wollstein,et al.  Optical coherence tomography longitudinal evaluation of retinal nerve fiber layer thickness in glaucoma. , 2005, Archives of ophthalmology.

[8]  D. Friedman,et al.  How should results from clinical tests be integrated into the diagnostic process? , 2006, Ophthalmology.

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

[10]  A. Beckett,et al.  AKUFO AND IBARAPA. , 1965, Lancet.

[11]  D. Garway-Heath,et al.  Improving the repeatability of Heidelberg retina tomograph and Heidelberg retina tomograph II rim area measurements , 2005, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[12]  G. Wollstein,et al.  Glaucoma detection with the Heidelberg retina tomograph 3. , 2007, Ophthalmology.

[13]  David Garway-Heath,et al.  Results of the betaxolol versus placebo treatment trial in ocular hypertension , 2003, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.

[14]  D. Garway-Heath,et al.  Factors affecting the test-retest variability of Heidelberg retina tomograph and Heidelberg retina tomograph II measurements , 2005, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[15]  Nicholas G Strouthidis,et al.  Optic disc and visual field progression in ocular hypertensive subjects: detection rates, specificity, and agreement. , 2006, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[16]  A. Ferreras,et al.  Diagnostic ability of Heidelberg Retina Tomograph 3 classifications: glaucoma probability score versus Moorfields regression analysis. , 2007, Ophthalmology.

[17]  A Heijl,et al.  Test-retest variability in glaucomatous visual fields. , 1989, American journal of ophthalmology.

[18]  L. Rossetti,et al.  Exploring the Heidelberg Retinal Tomograph 3 diagnostic accuracy across disc sizes and glaucoma stages: a multicenter study. , 2008, Ophthalmology.

[19]  L. Sakata,et al.  Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of Heidelberg Retina Tomograph II and Heidelberg Retina Tomograph 3 to discriminate glaucomatous and nonglaucomatous eyes. , 2007, American journal of ophthalmology.

[20]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[21]  A C Viswanathan,et al.  Detection of optic disc change with the Heidelberg retina tomograph before confirmed visual field change in ocular hypertensives converting to early glaucoma , 1999, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[22]  P. Artes,et al.  Automated analysis of heidelberg retina tomograph optic disc images by glaucoma probability score. , 2006, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[23]  N. Swindale,et al.  Automated analysis of normal and glaucomatous optic nerve head topography images. , 2000, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.