You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Clinical science
Extended reports
Accuracy of GDx VCC, HRT I, and clinical assessment of stereoscopic optic nerve head photographs for diagnosing glaucoma
  1. Nicolaas J Reus,
  2. Maartje de Graaf,
  3. Hans G Lemij
  1. Glaucoma Service, The Rotterdam Eye Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to: N J Reus The Rotterdam Eye Hospital, P.O. Box 70030, NL-3000 LM Rotterdam, The Netherlands;reus{at}oogziekenhuis.nl

Abstract

Aims: To determine and compare the accuracy and reproducibility of GDx variable cornea compensation (VCC) scanning laser polarimetry (SLP) with VCC, Heidelberg retina tomograph (HRT) I confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (CSLO), and clinical assessment of stereoscopic optic nerve head (ONH) photographs for diagnosing glaucoma.

Methods: One eye each of 40 healthy subjects, 48 glaucoma patients, and six patients with ocular hypertension were measured with SLP-VCC and CSLO. Simultaneous stereoscopic ONH photographs were also obtained. Sixteen photographs of healthy and glaucomatous eyes were duplicated for assessing intraobserver agreement. Four glaucoma specialists, four general ophthalmologists, four residents in ophthalmology, and four optometrists classified the ONH photographs as normal or glaucomatous. For SLP-VCC, the nerve fiber indicator (NFI) was evaluated. For CSLO, the Moorfields regression analysis (MRA) and the Bathija linear discriminant function (LDF) were used. Sensitivity, specificity, percentage of correctly classified eyes, and intra- and interobserver agreement, expressed as kappa (κ) were calculated.

Results: SLP-VCC had the highest diagnostic accuracy, with a sensitivity, specificity, and overall correct classification of 91.7%, 95.0% and 93.2%, respectively. CSLO, expressed as Bathija LDF and MRA, had a diagnostic accuracy comparable to glaucoma specialists and general ophthalmologists with an overall accuracy of 89.8%, 86.4%, 86.7% and 85.2%, respectively. Residents classified the fewest eyes correctly. Intraobserver agreement for classifying the ONH photographs ranged between 0.48 (within residents) and 0.78 (within glaucoma specialists). The interobserver agreement ranged between 0.45 (between residents) and 0.74 (between glaucoma specialists). The agreement between observers and CSLO MRA (κ, 0.68) was statistically significantly higher (p<0.001; paired t-test) than between observers and SLP-VCC NFI (κ, 0.60) and CSLO Bathija LDF (κ, 0.62).

Conclusion: Automated analysis of measurements with GDx VCC and HRT had a similar diagnostic accuracy for glaucoma as classification of stereoscopic ONH photographs by glaucoma specialists, thus bringing all eye-care professionals to this desirable level. The intra- and interobserver agreement for ONH analysis was only moderate to good. We think these imaging techniques may assist clinicians in diagnosing glaucoma.

  • AUC, area under curves
  • CSLO, confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy
  • GHT, glaucoma hemifield test
  • HAP, Hodapp-Anderson-Parrish
  • HRT, Heidelberg retina tomograph
  • IOP, intraocular pressure
  • LDF, linear discriminant function
  • MRA, Moorfields regression analysis
  • NFI, nerve fiber indicator
  • OHT, ocular hypertension
  • ONH, optic nerve head
  • REH, Rotterdam Eye Hospital
  • RNFL, retinal nerve fiber layer
  • ROC, receiver operating characteristic
  • SLP, scanning laser polarimetry
  • VCC, variable cornea compensation

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2006.096586

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Funding: The Rotterdam Eye Hospital Research Foundation, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Stichting Glaucoomfonds, Leiden, The Netherlands. The funding sources did not have any involvement in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; nor in the decision to submit the paper for publication.

    • Competing interests: NJR was reimbursed for travelling expenses by Laser Diagnostic Technologies, Inc. (now: Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc.) for speaking at several symposia. MdG has no competing interests. HGL was reimbursed for travelling expenses by Laser Diagnostic Technologies, Inc. (now: Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc.) for speaking at several symposia and had a research fellow paid for, in part, by Laser Diagnostic Technologies, Inc. (now: Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc.). NJR and HGL used a GDx VCC that was on loan by Laser Diagnostic Technologies, Inc. (now: Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc.).

    • Meeting presentation: Presented as a poster at the 2005 annual meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology.

    • Published Online First 11 October 2006