Br J Ophthalmol 1997;81:1037-1042 ( December )

Early detection of visual field progression in glaucoma: a comparison of PROGRESSOR and STATPAC 2

Ananth C Viswanathan,^a Fred W Fitzke,^a Roger A Hitchings^b

^a Institute of Ophthalmology, London EC1V 9EL, ^b Moorfields Eye Hospital, City Road, London EC1V 2PD

Correspondence to: Fred W Fitzke, PhD, Institute of Ophthalmology, 11-43 Bath Street, London EC1V 9EL.

Accepted for publication 28 April 1997

AIMTo compare the performance of PROGRESSOR (pointwise linear regression) and STATPAC 2 (comparison with baseline values) in detecting early deterioration in the visual fields of glaucoma patients.
METHODSVisual field series from 19 untreated normal tension glaucoma eyes which were deteriorating on clinical grounds were analysed by PROGRESSOR and STATPAC 2. Progression criteria for PROGRESSOR were (1) inner points: slope < 1 dB/year, p < 0.05 and (2) edge points: slope < 2 dB/year, p < 0.05. Criteria for STATPAC 2 were p < 0.05 change probability for any point on three consecutive fields. Detection time was defined as the time interval between the initial field and the first field in which at least one progressing point was identified. Detection times produced by the two techniques were compared.
RESULTSPROGRESSOR and STATPAC 2 agreed on progression in all 19 eyes. Mean detection time for PROGRESSOR was 1.077 (SD 0.985) years and for STATPAC 2 was 2.161 (1.357) years. PROGRESSOR detected progression sooner than STATPAC 2 in 18 eyes (p < 0.01, Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test). PROGRESSOR detected progression earlier by a mean of 1.085 (0.936) years.
CONCLUSIONSPROGRESSOR consistently detected progression earlier than STATPAC 2. The PROGRESSOR software is a useful tool for the early detection of visual field deterioration in glaucoma.

---

© 1997 by British Journal of Ophthalmology
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

Colour for time; charting the fourth dimension

JEFFREY L JAY
Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1997 81: 1026. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Diaz-Aleman, V T, Anton, A, de la Rosa, M G., Johnson, Z K, McLeod, S, Azuara-Blanco, A (2009). Detection of visual-field deterioration by Glaucoma Progression Analysis and Threshold Noiseless Trend programs. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 93: 322-328 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Chauhan, B C, Garway-Heath, D F, Goni, F J, Rossetti, L, Bengtsson, B, Viswanathan, A C, Heijl, A (2008). Practical recommendations for measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 92: 569-573 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Chisholm, C M, Rauscher, F G, Crabb, D C, Davies, L N, Dunne, M C, Edgar, D F, Harlow, J A, James-Galton, M, Petzold, A, Plant, G T, Viswanathan, A C, Underwood, G J, Barbur, J L (2008). Assessing visual fields for driving in patients with paracentral scotomata. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 92: 225-230 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Strouthidis, N. G., Scott, A., Viswanathan, A. C., Crabb, D. P., Garway-Heath, D. F. (2007). Monitoring Glaucomatous Visual Field Progression: The Effect of a Novel Spatial Filter. IOVS 48: 251-257 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Strouthidis, N. G., Scott, A., Peter, N. M., Garway-Heath, D. F. (2006). Optic disc and visual field progression in ocular hypertensive subjects: detection rates, specificity, and agreement.. IOVS 47: 2904-2910 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Haymes, S. A., Hutchison, D. M., McCormick, T. A., Varma, D. K., Nicolela, M. T., LeBlanc, R. P., Chauhan, B. C. (2005). Glaucomatous Visual Field Progression with Frequency-Doubling Technology and Standard Automated Perimetry in a Longitudinal Prospective Study. IOVS 46: 547-554 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Nouri-Mahdavi, K., Caprioli, J., Coleman, A. L., Hoffman, D., Gaasterland, D. (2005). Pointwise Linear Regression for Evaluation of Visual Field Outcomes and Comparison With the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study Methods. Arch Ophthalmol 123: 193-199 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Crabb, D P, Fitzke, F W, Hitchings, R A, Viswanathan, A C (2004). A practical approach to measuring the visual field component of fitness to drive. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 88: 1191-1196 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Aung, T, Oen, F T S, Wong, H-T, Chan, Y-H, Khoo, B-K, Liu, Y-P, Ho, C-L, See, J, Thean, L H, Viswanathan, A C, Seah, S K L, Chew, P T K (2004). Randomised controlled trial comparing the effect of brimonidine and timolol on visual field loss after acute primary angle closure. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 88: 88-94 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Viswanathan, A C, Crabb, D P, McNaught, A I, Westcott, M C, Kamal, D, Garway-Heath, D F, Fitzke, F W, Hitchings, R A (2003). Interobserver agreement on visual field progression in glaucoma: a comparison of methods. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 87: 726-730 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Gardiner, S. K., Crabb, D. P. (2002). Examination of Different Pointwise Linear Regression Methods for Determining Visual Field Progression. IOVS 43: 1400-1407 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Gardiner, S K, Crabb, D P (2002). Frequency of testing for detecting visual field progression. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 86: 560-564 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Spry, P. G. D., Johnson, C. A., Bates, A. B., Turpin, A., Chauhan, B. C. (2002). Spatial and Temporal Processing of Threshold Data for Detection of Progressive Glaucomatous Visual Field Loss. Arch Ophthalmol 120: 173-180 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Watson, P G, Barnett, M F, Parker, V, Haybittle, J (2001). A 7 year prospective comparative study of three topical {beta} blockers in the management of primary open angle glaucoma. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 85: 962-968 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Membrey, W L, Bunce, C, Poinoosawmy, D P, Fitzke, F W, Hitchings, R A (2001). Glaucoma surgery with or without adjunctive antiproliferatives in normal tension glaucoma: 2 Visual field progression. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 85: 696-701 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Membrey, W L, Poinoosawmy, D P, Bunce, C, Fitzke, F W, Hitchings, R A (2000). Comparison of visual field progression in patients with normal pressure glaucoma between eyes with and without visual field loss that threatens fixation. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 84: 1154-1158 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Spry, P. G. D., Bates, A. B., Johnson, C. A., Chauhan, B. C. (2000). Simulation of Longitudinal Threshold Visual Field Data. IOVS 41: 2192-2200 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Garway–Heath, D. F., Caprioli, J., Fitzke, F. W., Hitchings, R. A. (2000). Scaling the Hill of Vision: The Physiological Relationship between Light Sensitivity and Ganglion Cell Numbers. IOVS 41: 1774-1782 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Membrey, W L, Poinoosawmy, D P, Bunce, C, Hitchings, R A (2000). Glaucoma surgery with or without adjunctive antiproliferatives in normal tension glaucoma: 1 Intraocular pressure control and complications. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 84: 586-590 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Katz, J. (2000). A Comparison of the Pattern- and Total Deviation-Based Glaucoma Change Probability Programs. IOVS 41: 1012-1016 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Katz, J., Congdon, N., Friedman, D. S. (1999). Methodological Variations in Estimating Apparent Progressive Visual Field Loss in Clinical Trials of Glaucoma Treatment. Arch Ophthalmol 117: 1137-1142 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• HEIJL, A., BENGTSSON, B., LINDGREN;, G., VISWANATHAN, A C, FITZKE, F W, HITCHINGS, R A (1998). Visual field progression in glaucoma. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 82: 1096d-1096 [Full Text]