You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 104, Issue 4
  • Validating the efficacy of the binomial pointwise linear regression method to detect glaucoma progression with multicentral database

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Clinical science
Validating the efficacy of the binomial pointwise linear regression method to detect glaucoma progression with multicentral database
  1. Shotaro Asano1,
  2. Hiroshi Murata1,
  3. Masato Matsuura1,2,
  4. Yuri Fujino1,2,
  5. Atsuya Miki3,
  6. Masaki Tanito4,
  7. Shiro Mizoue4,5,6,
  8. Kazuhiko Mori7,
  9. Katsuyoshi Suzuki8,
  10. Takehiro Yamashita9,
  11. Kenji Kashiwagi10,
  12. Nobuyuki Shoji2,
  13. Linda M Zangwill11,
  14. Ryo Asaoka1
  1. 1 Department of Ophthalmology, University of Tokyo Graduate School of Medicine, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
  2. 2 Department of Ophthalmology, Kitasato University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, Japan
  3. 3 Department of Ophthalmology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Suita-shi, Osaka, Japan
  4. 4 Department of Ophthalmology, Shimane University Faculty of Medicine, Matsue-shi, Shimane, Japan
  5. 5 Department of Ophthalmology, Minami-matsuyama Hospital, Matsuyama-shi, Japan
  6. 6 Department of Ophthalmology, Ehime University Graduate School of Medicine, Matsuyama-shi, Ehime, Japan
  7. 7 Department of Ophthalmology, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kyoto, Kyoto, Japan
  8. 8 Department of Ophthalmology, Yamaguchi University Graduate School of Medicine, Yamaguchi, Yamaguchi, Japan
  9. 9 Department of Ophthalmology, Kagoshima University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Kagoshima, Kagoshima, Japan
  10. 10 Department of Ophthalmology, University of Yamanashi, Faculty of Medicine, Kofu, Yamanashi, Japan
  11. 11 Shiley Eye Institute Hamilton Glaucoma Center, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Ryo Asaoka, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Tokyo Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo 113-8655, Japan; ryoasa0120{at}mac.com

Abstract

Background/aim We previously reported the benefit of applying binomial pointwise linear regression (PLR: binomial PLR) to detect 10–2 glaucomatous visual field (VF) progression. The purpose of the current study was to validate the usefulness of the binomial PLR to detect glaucomatous VF progression in the central 24°.

Methods Series of 15 VFs (Humphrey Field Analyzer 24–2 SITA-standard) from 341 eyes of 233 patients, obtained over 7.9±2.1 years (mean±SD), were investigated. PLR was performed by regressing the total deviation of all test points. VF progression was determined from the VF test points analyses using the binomial test (one side, p<0.025). The time needed to detect VF progression was compared across the binomial PLR, permutation analysis of PLR (PoPLR) and mean total deviation (mTD) trend analysis.

Results The binomial PLR was comparable with PoPLR and mTD trend analyses in the positive predictive value (0.18–0.87), the negative predictive value (0.89–0.95) and the false positive rate (0.057–0.35) to evaluate glaucomatous VF progression. The time to classify progression with binomial PLR (5.8±2.8 years) was significantly shorter than those with mTD trend analysis (6.7±2.8 years) and PoPLR (6.6±2.7 years).

Conclusions The binomial PLR method, which detected glaucomatous VF progression in the central 24° significantly earlier than PoPLR and mTD trend analyses, shows promise for improving our ability to detect visual field progression for clinical management of glaucoma and in clinical trials of new glaucoma therapies.

  • glaucoma
  • field of vision

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-314136

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

    • Contributors Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work: SA, HM and RA. Acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data for the work: SA, HM, MM, YF, AM, MT, SM, KM, KS, TY, KK, NS, LMZ and RA. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content: SA, HM, MM, YF, AM, MT, SM, KM, KS, TY, KK, NS, LMZ and RA. Final approval of the version to be published: SA, HM, MM, YF, AM, MT, SM, KM, KS, TY, KK, NS, LMZ and RA. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved: SA, HM, MM, YF, AM, MT, SM, KM, KS, TY, KK, NS, LMZ and RA.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

    • Ethics approval This retrospective study was approved by the review board of each institute.

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

    • Data availability statement All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

    Linked Articles

    • At a glance
      Highlights from this issue
      Keith Barton James Chodosh Jost B Jonas
      British Journal of Ophthalmology 2020; 104 i-ii Published Online First: 24 Mar 2020. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-316223