Abstract

To assess sensitivity, specificity, and agreement among automated event analysis, automated trend analysis, and expert evaluation to detect glaucoma progression. This was a prospective study that included 37 eyes with a follow-up of 36 months. All had glaucomatous disks and fields and performed reliable visual fields every 6 months. Each series of fields was assessed with 3 different methods: subjective assessment by 2 independent teams of glaucoma experts, glaucoma/guided progression analysis (GPA) event analysis, and GPA (visual field index-based) trend analysis. Kappa agreement coefficient between methods and sensitivity and specificity for each method using expert opinion as gold standard were calculated. The incidence of glaucoma progression was 16% to 18% in 3 years but only 3 cases showed progression with all 3 methods. Kappa agreement coefficient was high (k=0.82) between subjective expert assessment and GPA event analysis, and only moderate between these two and GPA trend analysis (k=0.57). Sensitivity and specificity for GPA event and GPA trend analysis were 71% and 96%, and 57% and 93%, respectively. The 3 methods detected similar numbers of progressing cases. The GPA event analysis and expert subjective assessment showed high agreement between them and moderate agreement with GPA trend analysis. In a period of 3 years, both methods of GPA analysis offered high specificity, event analysis showed 83% sensitivity, and trend analysis had a 66% sensitivity.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call