Purpose To evaluate the effect of baseline test selection on progression detection of circumpapillary retinal nerve fibre layer (RNFL) and macular ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer (GCIPL) in glaucomatous eyes by optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided progression analysis (GPA).
Methods A total of 53 eyes with either RNFL or GCIPL progression determined using OCT-GPA were included. Three different baseline conditions were created by dividing eight serial OCT tests from each eye into three sets. Specifically, these sets presented baseline tests at exams 1–2 (1st set), 2–3 (2nd set) and 3–4 (3rd set), respectively. Agreement on progression detection was defined as the presence of ‘Possible Loss’ or ‘Likely Loss’ in the 2nd or 3rd sets at the same location in the 1st set.
Results The proportion of eyes with agreement on progression detection was 47.1%, 20.0% and 31.0% for RNFL ‘thickness map progression’, ‘thickness profiles progression’ and ‘average thickness progression’, respectively. In GCIPL ‘thickness map progression’ and ‘average thickness progression’, 53.8% and 62.8% of eyes showed agreement, respectively. Eyes with disagreement showed a greater change in thickness (slope of change in the 3rd set−1st set) compared to the eyes with agreement (p<0.05), with the exception of RNFL ‘thickness profiles progression’ (p=0.064).
Conclusion Glaucoma progression detection by OCT-GPA was affected by baseline test selection, especially in eyes with a greater reduction in progression. GCIPL thickness was less influenced by baseline test selection compared to RNFL thickness.
- Optic Nerve
Statistics from Altmetric.com
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.
Contributors DHK, YHH: conception and design; data collection; analysis and interpretation; writing of the article; critical revision of the article.
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.
Data sharing statement Data are available upon reasonable request.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.