Original article
Agreement Among Glaucoma Specialists in Assessing Progressive Disc Changes From Photographs in Open-Angle Glaucoma Patients

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2008.07.023Get rights and content

Purpose

To determine the agreement among glaucoma specialists in assessing progressive disc changes from photographs in a cohort of patients with glaucomatous visual field loss.

Methods

Three glaucoma specialists, masked to chronological sequence, examined pairs of optic disc stereophotographs to determine whether the appearance of the optic disc had changed. Eyes for which the observers disagreed were adjudicated to reach a consensus about which discs had changed over time.

Results

Sequential stereophotographs, separated in time by a median of 26 months (range, five to 50), from 164 eyes of 111 patients were analyzed. Among the three observers, the number of interpretable discs judged to have changed was 11 of 155 (7%) for Observer 1, 17 of 155 (11%) for Observer 2, and 44 of 155 (28%) for Observer 3 (κ = 0.20). Sixty-six eyes (43%) required adjudication. After adjudication, the consensus was that 10 discs had changed, six eyes in which the disc was worse in the later photograph and four eyes in which the disc was judged to appear more glaucomatous in the earlier photograph.

Conclusion

Interobserver agreement among glaucoma specialists in judging progressive optic disc change from stereophotographs was slight to fair. After masked adjudication, in 40% of the cases in which the optic disc appeared to have progressed in glaucoma severity, the photograph of the “worse” optic disc was in fact taken at the start of the study. Caution must be exercised when using disc change on photographs as the “gold standard” for diagnosing open-angle glaucoma or determining its progression.

Section snippets

Methods

Annual photographs of the optic discs of subjects enrolled in the GILS study were taken with a Zeiss fundus camera (Zeiss Inc, Jena, Germany) as 30-degree images and printed on color transparencies. The photographer captured a stereopair by aligning the camera at the maximal separation possible between two sequential photographs. All eyes with at least two sets of stereophotographs were selected for inclusion. For each eye, the pairs of optic disc photographs most separated in time were

Results

Stereophotographs from at least two different time points were available for 164 eyes of 111 subjects from the entire GILS cohort of 312 eyes of 205 patients. The quality of at least one of the two stereopairs of nine (5.5%) of the 164 eyes was deemed insufficient for analysis by at least two of the three readers, leaving 155 eyes of 103 subjects that were graded by the three glaucoma specialists.

The age of the subjects whose disc photographs were analyzed was 68 ± 12 years with a range of 36

Discussion

We found a lack of agreement among three glaucoma experts when they independently assessed disc change over time in a cohort of OAG patients with established VF loss. Not only was the κ value for agreement poor, but the proportion of discs deemed changed varied widely among the three observers. With adjudication, many discs that one or more observers had considered changed were classified as unchanged, suggesting that many of the changes observed were “soft calls.” It should be noted that,

Henry D. Jampel, MD, MHS, is the Odd Fellows and Rebekahs Professor of Ophthalmology at the Wilmer Eye Institute of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Dr Jampel is the Associate Editor-in-Chief of Ophthalmology, serves on the Glaucoma Preferred Practice Pattern committee of the American Academy of Ophthalmology, and is Co-Director of the Glaucoma Subspecialty Day 2008 at the annual meeting of the Academy.

Cited by (0)

Henry D. Jampel, MD, MHS, is the Odd Fellows and Rebekahs Professor of Ophthalmology at the Wilmer Eye Institute of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Dr Jampel is the Associate Editor-in-Chief of Ophthalmology, serves on the Glaucoma Preferred Practice Pattern committee of the American Academy of Ophthalmology, and is Co-Director of the Glaucoma Subspecialty Day 2008 at the annual meeting of the Academy.

View full text