Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Original article
Agreement to detect glaucomatous visual field progression by using three different methods: a multicentre study
  1. M Iester1,
  2. E Capris1,
  3. F De Feo2,
  4. M Polvicino2,
  5. P Brusini3,
  6. P Capris4,
  7. G Corallo1,
  8. M Figus5,
  9. P Fogagnolo6,
  10. P Frezzotti7,
  11. G Manni8,
  12. A Perdicchi9
  1. 1Laboratorio clinico anatomo-funzionale per la diagnosi e il trattamento del glaucoma e della malattie neurooftalmologiche, Clinica Oculistica, Department of Neurological Sciences, Ophthalmology, Genetic, University of Genoa, Italy
  2. 2Divisione di Oculistica, Ospedale San Paolo, Savona, Italy
  3. 3Divisione di Oculistica, S. Maria della Misericordia Hospital, Udine, Italy
  4. 4Ophthalmic Division of the G. Gaslini Institute, Genoa, Italy
  5. 5Clinica Oculistica, University of Pisa, Italy
  6. 6G. B. Bietti Eye Foundation for the Study and Research in Ophthalmology - IRCCS, Rome, Italy
  7. 7Dipartimento di chirurgia, sezione Oftalmologia, University of Siena, Italy
  8. 8Clinica Oculistica, University of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy
  9. 9Clinica Oculistica, University Sapienza 2, Rome, Italy
  1. Correspondence to Michele Iester, MD, PhD, University Eye Clinic, Viale Benedetto XV, 5, 16132 Genoa, Italy; iester{at}


Aim To examine the level of agreement among nine clinicians in assessing progressive deterioration in visual field (VF) overview using three different methods of analysis.

Methods Each visual field was assessed by Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA), program 24-2 SITA Standard. Nine expert clinicians assessed the progression status of each series by using HFA ‘overview printouts’ (HFA OP), the Guided Progression Analysis (GPA) and the Guided Progression Analysis (GPA2). VF series were presented in random order, but each patient's VF remained in chronological order within a given field series. Each clinician adopted his personal methods based on his knowledge to evaluate VF progression. The level of agreement between the clinicians was evaluated by using weighted κ statistics.

Results A total of 303 tests, comprising 38 visual field series of 7.9±3.4 tests (mean±SD), were assessed by the nine glaucoma specialists. When the intra-observer agreement was evaluated between HFA OP and GPA, the mean κ statistic was 0.58±0.13, between HFA OP and GPA2, κ was 0.55±0.06 and between GPA and GPA2 it was 0.56±0.17. When the inter-observer agreement was analysed κ statistic was 0.65 for HFA OP, 0.54 for GPA and 0.70 for GPA2.

Conclusions Using any procedure for evaluating the progression of a series of VF, agreement between expert clinicians is moderate. Clinicians had higher agreement when GPA2 was used, followed by HFA OP and GPA printouts, but these differences were not significant.

  • Glaucoma
  • stage
  • visual field
  • progression
  • agreement
  • field of vision

Statistics from

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.


  • This study has been presented in part at the Association for Research and Vision in Ophthalmology (ARVO) meeting 2–6 May 2010, in Ft Lauderdale, Florida, USA.

  • Competing Interest None to declare.

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

Linked Articles

  • At a glance
    Harminder S Dua Arun D Singh