Article Text

other Versions

PDF
Agreement of visual field interpretation among glaucoma specialists and comprehensive ophthalmologists: comparison of time and methods
  1. Albert P Lin1,
  2. L Jay Katz2,
  3. George L Spaeth2,
  4. Marlene R Moster2,
  5. Jeffrey D Henderer3,
  6. Courtland M Schmidt Jr2,
  7. Jonathan S Myers2
  1. 1Michael E DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
  2. 2Wills Eye Institute and Thomas Jefferson University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  3. 3Department of Ophthalmology, Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Albert P Lin, 2002 Holcombe Blvd 112C, Houston, TX 77030, USA; alin{at}bcm.edu

Abstract

Aims To evaluate interobserver agreement and interpretation time for three clinically available formats of visual field presentation: serial Humphrey visual field (HVF), STATPAC2 and PROGRESSOR.

Methods 40 field series from the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study were presented to eight glaucoma specialists and eight comprehensive ophthalmologists to determine whether each field series was stable or progressive. Interobserver agreement and agreement with Hodapp–Parrish–Anderson criteria were evaluated using κ statistics, and the interpretation time was compared.

Results For glaucoma specialists, median κ values for interobserver agreement were 0.47, 0.60 and 0.43 for HVF, STATPAC2 and PROGRESSOR, respectively. Respective κ values for comprehensive ophthalmologists were 0.43, 0.43 and 0.35. For glaucoma specialists, median κ values for agreement with Hodapp–Parrish–Anderson criteria were 0.52, 0.67 and 0.52 for HVF, STATPAC2 and PROGRESSOR, respectively. Respective κ values for comprehensive ophthalmologists were 0.41, 0.47 and 0.33. For glaucoma specialists, the mean±SD interpretation time for the series of 40 fields was 63.4±35.9, 57.1±23.1 and 41.1±15.3 min using HVF, STATPAC2 and PROGRESSOR, respectively. Respective interpretation times for comprehensive ophthalmologists were 72.9±38.3, 68.6±30.6 and 51±24.1 min. Interpretation time was decreased when STATPAC2 or PROGRESSOR was used rather than HVF. Time reduction was significant for glaucoma specialists using PROGRESSOR (p=0.02).

Conclusions For glaucoma specialists, interobserver agreement and agreement with HPA criteria were moderate to substantial. For comprehensive ophthalmologists, interobserver agreement and agreement with HPA criteria were fair to moderate. Field interpretation time may be reduced clinically when using STATPAC2 or PROGRESSOR rather than HVF.

  • Glaucoma
  • visual field
  • perimetry
  • disease progression
  • diagnostic tests/investigation
  • field of vision

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Competing interests None.

  • Ethics approval This study was conducted with the approval of the Wills Eye Institute Institutional Review Board, located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

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.

Linked Articles

  • At a glance
    Harminder S Dua Arun D Singh