You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Glaucoma
Differentiating stages of functional vision loss from glaucoma using the Disc Damage Likelihood Scale and cup:disc ratio
  1. Heiko Philippin1,2,
  2. Einoti Naino Matayan3,4,
  3. Karin Marianne Knoll3,
  4. Edith Macha3,
  5. Sia Mbishi3,
  6. Andrew Makupa3,4,
  7. Cristóvão Daniel Matsinhe3,5,
  8. Isac Vasco da Gama3,6,
  9. Mário Jorge Monjane3,
  10. Joyce Awum Ncheda3,7,
  11. Francisco Alcides Francisco Mulobuana3,
  12. Elisante Muna3,
  13. Nelly Fopoussi Guylene3,8,
  14. Gus Gazzard9,10,
  15. Ana Patricia Marques1,
  16. Peter Shah10,11,
  17. David Macleod12,
  18. William Makupa3,4,
  19. Matthew J Burton1,9
  1. 1 International Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Department of Clinical Research, London, UK
  2. 2 Eye Centre, Medical Centre, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany
  3. 3 Eye Department, Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre, Moshi, Tanzania, United Republic of
  4. 4 Kilimanjaro Christian Medical University College, Moshi, Tanzania, United Republic of
  5. 5 Provincial Hospital of Pemba, Pemba, Mozambique
  6. 6 Hospital Central de Quelimane, Quelimane, Mozambique
  7. 7 Presbyterian Eye Hospital, Bafoussam, Cameroon
  8. 8 Eye Department, Cameroon Baptist Convention Health Services, Douala, Cameroon
  9. 9 National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) for Ophthalmology at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK
  10. 10 Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, UK
  11. 11 Ophthalmology, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
  12. 12 MRC International Statistics & Epidemiology Group, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Heiko Philippin, International Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Department of Clinical Research, London WC1E 7HT, UK; Heiko.Philippin{at}lshtm.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo-2022-321643

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.

    WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC

    • Functional and structural descriptors of the optic nerve head damage can be used to distinguish between different stages of glaucoma, with most diagnostic studies focusing on earlier stages.

    • We assessed eyes with predominantly later stages of glaucoma

    WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

    • Disc Damage Likelihood Scale and cup:disc ratio are feasible methods to discriminate late functional stages of glaucoma.

    HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY

    • These low-cost structural grading systems can support treatment planning for late stage glaucoma, which has a particularly negative impact on visual function and quality of life.

    Introduction

    Glaucoma is the most common cause of irreversible blindness worldwide, leading to reduced quality of life and livelihood.1 Sight loss from glaucoma is a result of damage to ocular nerve fibre tissue, mainly caused by increased intraocular pressure (IOP). Staging the damage is important for monitoring the progression of the disease and planning management accordingly. This typically includes appropriate reduction of IOP, along with other components of glaucoma care. Progression of this glaucomatous nerve fibre damage can be monitored with both functional and anatomical descriptors.

    Functional glaucomatous damage is usually measured by static visual field (VF) examination (perimetry), with disease staging based on the extent and severity of field loss.2 However, severe and end-stage glaucoma commonly affect the central visual acuity, so that static VF testing cannot be reliably performed due to the eye’s inability to fixate. Under these conditions, visual acuity can be used as an alternative means to describe advanced functional damage. Mills et al. proposed a glaucoma staging system (GSS) based on static VF examinations, and added categories for severe and end-stage glaucoma; the latter applies if a static VF test cannot be performed due to a central scotoma or the eye has a visual acuity of ≤20/200.3 This provides for categorisation of glaucomatous functional damage ranging from prediagnosis to end-stage disease.

    Assessment of anatomical or structural damage due to glaucoma focuses mainly on the optic nerve head rim and cup, formed by optic nerve fibres.4 The most commonly used grading system measures the cup:disc ratio (CDR), usually by slit-lamp indirect ophthalmoscopy. Armaly described it in 1967 as the ratio of the vertical and horizontal diameters of the optic disc cup to the overall diameters of the disc.5 Spaeth et al. later developed the Disc Damage Likelihood Scale (DDLS), which identifies the narrowest rim width in relation to the disc diameter (rim:disc ratio). If no rim is present anymore in a particular sector of the disc, the scale quantifies the circumferential extent of the rim loss.6 This allows a structural grading ranging from a normal optic nerve head to a complete loss of the neuroretinal rim in the final stage of the disease.

    Many glaucoma diagnostic studies have focused on distinguishing between normal eyes and early or moderate glaucoma typically with preserved central visual acuity, using perimetry as the main method for disease staging. More advanced glaucoma is often associated with a reduced visual acuity which has additional negative effects on mental health status, morbidity, mortality and the cost of glaucoma management.7 Each further stage of glaucoma can lead to relevant changes in quality of life.8 9 Worldwide, advanced glaucoma is more prevalent in low-resource settings where expensive equipment might be less available.10–12 Our aim was to evaluate the low-cost structural DDLS and CDR grading systems for their ability to discriminate different functional stages of glaucoma in a study population with predominantly advanced disease.

    Methods

    Study design

    This study was based on a post hoc analysis of the Kilimanjaro Glaucoma Intervention Programme (KiGIP) SLT trial. This was a randomised, controlled, parallel group, single masked clinical trial which tested the hypothesis that selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT) is superior to timolol eye drops for the treatment of open-angle glaucoma, the design and main results have been previously reported.13

    The KiGIP SLT trial was registered with the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry (PACTR201508001235339).

    Participants

    Participants who attended the eye clinic at Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre, Moshi, Tanzania, were screened consecutively for eligibility between 31 August 2015 and 12 May 2017. Inclusion criteria for the trial were an IOP of >21 mm Hg, structural changes of the optic nerve head (DDLS score ≥5 or a vertical cup:disc ratio (vCDR) ≥0.7, or a vCDR asymmetry between two eyes of ≥0.2), and functional changes (glaucomatous VF defect, Mills GSS ≥1).3 Categories of high-risk glaucoma suspect (IOP >25 mm Hg, structural changes as previously mentioned and no VF defect) or high-risk ocular hypertension (IOP >32 mm Hg, no structural or functional defect) were also permitted. Exclusion criteria included participants being aged <18 years or eyes with no perception of light. More details are described elsewhere.13

    Diagnostic methods

    The visual function was assessed using the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) visual acuity measured at 2 m with the Peek Acuity Smartphone app V.3.5.0 (Peek Vision, London, UK) in a dimmed room.14 Static VF perimetry was performed using the Swedish interactive threshold algorithm standard 24–2 or 10–2 programs (II-I Series System software V.4.2, Humphrey HFA II 740i Visual Field Analyzer; Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany).

    Glaucoma-related structural features were assessed by slit-lamp examination of the anterior segment, pachymetry (central corneal thickness (CCT)), gonioscopy, fundus imaging and indirect fundoscopy (using a Digital 1.0X Volk slit-lamp lens) of the optic nerve head, macula and peripheral retina. The lens and the slit-lamp calliper were used to measure the optic nerve head diameter. The examiner of the enrolment visits was a single consultant ophthalmologist who followed a standard protocol and was masked to the VF examination, which was performed by a different investigator. All examinations were done prior to randomisation and treatment allocation.

    The structural glaucomatous damage of the optic nerve head was classified using the DDLS, the vCDR and the horizontal CDR.5 6 DDLS was determined by locating the thinnest neuroretinal rim and, if still present, calculating the rim:disc ratio or, if absent, estimating the circumferential extension of the absence of neuroretinal rim tissue in degrees. After measuring the disc diameter, the DDLS was established accordingly. To determine the CDRs, the vertical and horizontal cup diameters were related to the respective disc diameters.

    Analysis

    For the purpose of this post hoc analysis, all eyes enrolled in the trial were staged according to the mean deviation (MD) categories of Mills GSS including stage 5 (end-stage disease) if an eye was unable to perform a VF examination attributable to central scotoma.3 The functional GSS stages were used as the reference standard to compare with structural changes in advanced glaucoma.

    The median GSS was used to subdivide eyes into two groups of glaucoma severity: (1) GSS 1–3 (early, moderate and advanced glaucoma) and (2) GSS 4–5 (severe and end-stage glaucoma). The performance of CDRs and DDLS for discriminating between these two groups of functional damage was evaluated with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves adjusted for intereye correlation. Curves were compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AROC) curve. ROC curve analyses were also used to identify the best threshold to achieve the highest combination of specificity and sensitivity. In addition, AROCs were also calculated using the two groups GSS 1–2 (early, moderate) and GSS 3–5 (advanced, severe end-stage).

    The correlation between the GSS, DDLS and the CDRs was assessed using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. The arithmetic mean CDR was calculated from the vCDR and horizontal CDR measurements.

    Logistic regression models were constructed to determine potential risk factors of severe/end-stage glaucoma with generalised estimating equations adjusting for the correlation between eyes.15 The association between each potential risk factor and severe/end stage glaucoma was first estimated in a univariable (unadjusted) model before adjusting for confounding variables. Potential confounders were assessed through a change-in-estimate approach16 by adding covariates to the unadjusted model and retaining them if the OR of the covariate of interest changed by around 10% or more. Multicollinearity was checked for by evaluating change of SEs of the coefficient estimates.

    Results

    A total of 201 participants (382 eyes) were enrolled in this study. Their mean age was 66.3 (SD 11.6) years and 83/201 (41%) were female (table 1). The VF assessments of participants’ eyes showed an average MD of −17.2 (SD 11.1) dB for 347 eyes using the 24–2 Humphrey VF test, and an average MD of −32.3 (SD 3.4) dB in eight eyes using the 10–2 test. A VF test was not possible for 27 eyes due to a low visual acuity (table 1).

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Patient and ocular characteristics

    Subdividing the GSS into two groups following the median GSS resulted in 187 eyes (49.0%) with early/moderate/advanced glaucoma and 195 eyes (51.0%) with severe/end-stage glaucoma. Predicting this dichotomous variable using DDLS yielded an AROC curve of 0.90 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.93, figure 1). Using a cut-off point of DDLS score of 8 and above, 83.5% of eyes were correctly classified resulting in a sensitivity of 90.3% and a specificity of 76.5%. For the vCDR, the AROC curve was 0.88 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.91). Using a cut-off point of 0.9 and above, 83.0% of eyes were correctly classified with a sensitivity of 88.7% and a specificity of 77.0%. The difference in the two areas under the curve of DDLS and vCDR was statistically significant (p=0.04, figure 1). When combining the vCDR and horizontal CDR by calculating the mean CDR, the AROC curve was 0.89 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.93); sensitivity and specificity were 85.5% and 80.8%, respectively. Spearman’s rank correlation value comparing GSS with DDLS was 0.73 with vCDR of 0.71.

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    ROC curves of DDLS (solid line) and vCDR (dashed line) and the binary classifier of functional glaucoma stages: early/moderate/advanced versus severe/end stage. DDLS, Disc Damage Likelihood Scale; ROC, receiver operating characteristic; vCDR, vertical cup:disc ratio.

    The alternative groups GSS 1–2 (early, moderate) contained 143 eyes (37%) and GSS 3–5 (advanced, severe, end-stage) 239 eyes (63%) resulting for DDLS in an AROC of 0.90 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.93) and for CDR of 0.90 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.93, p=0.64).

    Risk factors associated with severe/end-stage glaucoma with a p value of <0.05 in univariable analyses were a lower level of education, less financial resources, presence of exfoliation glaucoma, lower CCT, higher IOP at baseline, presence of vision impairment and advanced structural stage of glaucoma (DDLS and vCDR). The adjusted analyses showed an association (p<0.05) between severe/end-stage glaucoma and financial resources of ≤US$2/day, IOP of ≥25 mm Hg, the presence of vision impairment (VA<6/12) and advanced structural stage of glaucoma (DDLS≥8, vCDR≥0.9; see also tables 2 and 3).

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Predicted ORs for functional severe/end-stage glaucoma at entry into the KiGIP SLT trial

    View this table:
    Table 3

    DDLS

    Two functional descriptors of glaucomatous damage, static VF examination (continuous mean deviation) and visual acuity (logMAR) compared with two structural descriptors DDLS and vCDR are shown in figure 2. The mean deviation drops rapidly starting from DDLS score of 8 and vCDR of 0.9. Visual acuity initially increases slowly but shows a steep increase towards DDLS score of 10 and vCDR of 1.

    Figure 2
    Figure 2

    Comparison of the Disc Damage Likelihood Scale and vertical cup:disc ratio with (A) visual field mean deviation and (B) visual acuity (logMAR). Boxes show median, upper and lower quartiles. Whiskers represent scores outside the middle 50%. Outliers are presented as individual dots. logMAR, logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution.

    Discussion

    This study found that the two structural optic disc staging systems, Armaly’s CDR5 and Spaeth et al.’s DDLS,6 were both able to discriminate between functionally mild/moderate/advanced glaucoma and severe/end-stage glaucoma. There was some evidence (p=0.048) of a larger AROC curve for DDLS compared with the vCDR.

    Prior studies of DDLS have reported mainly AROCs for the discrimination between normal and glaucomatous eyes for the purpose of glaucoma detection. Danesh-Meyer et al. compared people without glaucoma and patients with glaucoma, defined by a combination of glaucomatous optic disc and VF changes and IOP. Clinical examination using DDLS had the highest AROC curve for identifying glaucoma from suspect or normal (AROC=0.91) followed by CDR (AROC=0.81), MD of VF examination (AROC=0.78), Hodapp-Parrish-Anderson VF score (AROC=0.75) and HRT-II rim area (AROC=0.62).17 Kara-José et al. similarly compared normal individuals to patients with early glaucoma and reported similar findings but with no significant differences between DDLS and CDR.18 Our results in more advanced glaucoma showed comparable AROCs which are noteworthy because optic disc changes are more pronounced in early glaucoma than in severe or end-stage disease compared with functional tests.7 19 The ocular hypertension treatment study showed that the earliest signs of progression from ocular hypertension to glaucoma are more likely detected by structural changes of the optic disc than by functional VF changes.20 The results from this study suggest that DDLS and, to a lesser extent, vCDR can provide a staging of the glaucomatous optic disc damage up to end-stage glaucoma, including stages where automated perimetry is no longer possible. Then the optic disc grading may be supplemented by visual acuity measurements. The visual acuity categories ‘hand movement’ and ‘counting fingers’ are separated by three 0.1 logMAR units or ‘lines’ at 30 cm confirming the clinical impression that the difference is relevant for a person with severe or end-stage glaucoma even beyond the possibility of using a static VF device.9

    AROCs of CDRs increased slightly in our study when using the mean of vCDRs and horizontal CDRs. A possible explanation for this might be that early glaucomatous changes of the neuroretinal rim thickness start in the inferotemporal and superotemporal parts of the cup,21 predominantly captured by the vCDR. Temporal and lastly nasal neuroretinal rim areas are affected as the glaucomatous damage progresses to more advanced stages, increasingly captured by the horizontal CDR as well.22 This typical course of thinning of the different sectors of the optic disc rim is also reflected in the two anatomical descriptors of the DDLS (narrowest rim thickness (DDLS scores 1–5) and extension of rim absence (DDLS scores 6–10, table 3). DDLS therefore also allows finer grading of advanced glaucoma stages compared with CDR (figure 2), which is only based on changes of the cup diameter.

    Rim:disc ratio also performed better than CDR in fully automated fundus image processing to categorise optic discs when comparing them to expert clinician annotations.23 DDLS has been shown to be more accurate and repeatable than the CDR24 25 and is also used in community screening and shared glaucoma care models in New Zealand and Scotland, for example.26 27

    Apart from the anatomical descriptors DDLS and CDR, the current study found a higher IOP was a risk factor for severe and end-stage glaucoma, which has previously been reported by several other studies including from Africa.28 29 Financial resources of ≤US$2/day of a patient were another risk factor for severe and end-stage glaucoma. Several studies report associations between advanced glaucoma and a low socioeconomic status.30 31 This is also in line with a general link between poverty and an increased risk of vision impairment.1 30 31

    Our study has several limitations. The data were acquired during a clinical trial by examiners who followed standard operating procedures, but the data were not externally validated with image analysis. We were also not able to capture consistent optical coherence tomography (OCT) images: after a failure of the initially used time-domain OCT device, it had to be replaced by a spectral-domain OCT device, whose measurements were not interchangeable.32 While OCT can be useful in assessing advanced glaucoma,33 described limitations included artefacts and segmentation errors, and the OCT reference database may not be relevant for the particular patient.34 A further limitation of the current study is that trial participants were randomised to treatments rather than glaucoma severity, which could bias the results of the post hoc analysis. Furthermore, two exposures of interest and the outcome were involved in the inclusion criteria for the trial (cut-offs of DDLS score ≥5 or CDR ≥0.8, GSS >0). This could mean that the estimates of the strength and size of the association between each of these and the outcome could be different in a more general population which also includes all patients with glaucoma. Furthermore, measurements of functional and structural parameters are subject to multifactorial variability (eg, physiological, examiner-related, eye-related and device-related), which must always be taken into account. These variations were also present in our dataset, for example, as outliers (see figure 2).

    In conclusion, DDLS and CDR are low-cost and feasible methods for describing and discriminating structural stages related to functionally mild/moderate/advanced glaucoma versus severe/end-stage glaucoma. The DDLS may be advantageous over the CDR due to the slightly larger AROC, more categories to differentiate advanced glaucoma and a better fitting description of the course of glaucomatous optic disc damage. This study supports the use of these grading systems also in advanced glaucoma. They can be implemented with affordable equipment without a need for complex technology and when a VF examination cannot be performed, for example, in patients with severe or end-stage glaucoma or a strong fatigue effect or in young children. Both can play an important role in the assessment of advanced glaucoma damage and progression and help clinicians with treatment decisions to prevent further visual disability.

    Data availability statement

    Data are available upon reasonable request.

    Ethics statements

    Patient consent for publication

    Ethics approval

    This study involves human participants. The KiGIP SLT trial was approved by the research ethics review committees of the National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR/HQ/R.8a/Vol.IX/1929) in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, the Kilimanjaro Christian Medical University College (No. 800) in Moshi, Tanzania and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (Ethics Ref 7166) in London, UK. It was conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the International Conference on Harmonisation–Good Clinical Practice. At the time of the baseline assessment, written informed consent was obtained in Swahili before participants were enrolled. A patient reference group provided input on different aspects of the study design and conduct.

    Acknowledgments

    We thank the trial participants for their trust and commitment. We thank the members of the patient steering group, as well as the data and safety monitoring board for their services and valuable input. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the continued support of the administrative teams of the International Centre for Eye Health (London, UK), the Eye Department of Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre (Moshi, Tanzania) and Christian Blind Mission. We thank the regional eye care coordinator, the Kilimanjaro Christian Medical University College (Moshi, Tanzania), and National Institute for Medical Research Dar es Salaam (Dar es Salaam, Tanzania) for their support.

    References

    1. ↵
      2. Burton MJ ,
      3. Ramke J ,
      4. Marques AP , et al
      . The Lancet global health commission on global eye health: vision beyond 2020. Lancet Glob Health 2021;9:e489–551.doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30488-5 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33607016
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    2. ↵
      2. Brusini P ,
      3. Johnson CA
      . Staging functional damage in glaucoma: review of different classification methods. Surv Ophthalmol 2007;52:156–79.doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2006.12.008 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17355855
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    3. ↵
      2. Mills RP ,
      3. Budenz DL ,
      4. Lee PP , et al
      . Categorizing the stage of glaucoma from pre-diagnosis to end-stage disease. Am J Ophthalmol 2006;141:24–30.doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2005.07.044 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16386972
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    4. ↵
      2. Henderer JD
      . Disc damage likelihood scale. Br J Ophthalmol 2006;90:395–6.doi:10.1136/bjo.2005.083360 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16547307
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    5. ↵
      2. Armaly MF
      . Genetic determination of cup/disc ratio of the optic nerve. Arch Ophthalmol 1967;78:35–43.doi:10.1001/archopht.1967.00980030037007 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6067496
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    6. ↵
      2. Spaeth GL ,
      3. Lopes JF ,
      4. Junk AK , et al
      . Systems for staging the amount of optic nerve damage in glaucoma: a critical review and new material. Surv Ophthalmol 2006;51:293–315.doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2006.04.008 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16818081
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    7. ↵
      2. de Moraes CG ,
      3. Liebmann JM ,
      4. Medeiros FA , et al
      . Management of advanced glaucoma: characterization and monitoring. Surv Ophthalmol 2016;61:597–615.doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2016.03.006 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27018149
      OpenUrlPubMed
    8. ↵
      2. Medeiros FA ,
      3. Gracitelli CPB ,
      4. Boer ER , et al
      . Longitudinal changes in quality of life and rates of progressive visual field loss in glaucoma patients. Ophthalmology 2015;122:293–301.doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.08.014 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25444345
      OpenUrlPubMed
    9. ↵
      2. Lange C ,
      3. Feltgen N ,
      4. Junker B , et al
      . Resolving the clinical acuity categories "hand motion" and "counting fingers" using the Freiburg Visual Acuity Test (FrACT). Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2009;247:137–42.doi:10.1007/s00417-008-0926-0 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18766368
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    10. ↵
      1. GBD 2019 Blindness and Vision Impairment Collaborators
      2. Vision Loss Expert Group of the Global Burden of Disease Study
      . Causes of blindness and vision impairment in 2020 and trends over 30 years, and prevalence of avoidable blindness in relation to vision 2020: the right to sight: an analysis for the global burden of disease study. Lancet Glob Health 2021;9:e144–60.doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30489-7 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33275949
      OpenUrlPubMed
    11. ↵
      2. Jones PR ,
      3. Philippin H ,
      4. Makupa WU , et al
      . Severity of visual field loss at first presentation to glaucoma clinics in England and Tanzania. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2020;27:10–18.doi:10.1080/09286586.2019.1661499 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31517561
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    12. ↵
      2. Day F ,
      3. Buchan JC ,
      4. Cassells-Brown A , et al
      . A glaucoma equity profile: correlating disease distribution with service provision and uptake in a population in northern England, UK. Eye 2010;24:1478–85.doi:10.1038/eye.2010.73 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20508654
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    13. ↵
      2. Philippin H ,
      3. Matayan E ,
      4. Knoll KM , et al
      . Selective laser trabeculoplasty versus 0·5% timolol eye drops for the treatment of glaucoma in Tanzania: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Glob Health 2021;9:e1589–99.doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(21)00348-X pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34655547
      OpenUrlPubMed
    14. ↵
      2. Bastawrous A ,
      3. Rono HK ,
      4. Livingstone IAT , et al
      . Development and validation of a smartphone-based visual acuity test (peek acuity) for clinical practice and community-based fieldwork. JAMA Ophthalmol 2015;133:930–7.doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2015.1468 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26022921
      OpenUrlPubMed
    15. ↵
      2. Zeger SL ,
      3. Liang KY
      . Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics 1986;42:121–30.doi:10.2307/2531248 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3719049
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    16. ↵
      2. Greenland S ,
      3. Pearce N
      . Statistical foundations for model-based adjustments. Annu Rev Public Health 2015;36:89–108.doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031914-122559 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25785886
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    17. ↵
      2. Danesh-Meyer HV ,
      3. Gaskin BJ ,
      4. Jayusundera T , et al
      . Comparison of disc damage likelihood scale, cup to disc ratio, and heidelberg retina tomograph in the diagnosis of glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 2006;90:437–41.doi:10.1136/bjo.2005.077131 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16547323
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    18. ↵
      2. Kara-José AC ,
      3. Melo LAS ,
      4. Esporcatte BLB , et al
      . The disc damage likelihood scale: diagnostic accuracy and correlations with cup-to-disc ratio, structural tests and standard automated perimetry. PLoS One 2017;12:e0181428–15.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0181428 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28727836
      OpenUrlPubMed
    19. ↵
      2. Medeiros FA ,
      3. Zangwill LM ,
      4. Bowd C , et al
      . The structure and function relationship in glaucoma: implications for detection of progression and measurement of rates of change. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012;53:6939–46.doi:10.1167/iovs.12-10345 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22893677
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    20. ↵
      2. Kass MA ,
      3. Heuer DK ,
      4. Higginbotham EJ , et al
      . The ocular hypertension treatment study: a randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120:701–30.doi:10.1001/archopht.120.6.701 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12049574
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    21. ↵
      2. Hitchings RA ,
      3. Spaeth GL
      . The optic disc in glaucoma. I: classification. Br J Ophthalmol 1976;60:778–85.doi:10.1136/bjo.60.11.778 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1009058
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    22. ↵
      2. Jonas JB ,
      3. Budde WM ,
      4. Panda-Jonas S
      . Ophthalmoscopic evaluation of the optic nerve head. Surv Ophthalmol 1999;43:293–320.doi:10.1016/S0039-6257(98)00049-6 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10025513
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    23. ↵
      2. Kumar JRH ,
      3. Seelamantula CS ,
      4. Kamath YS , et al
      . Rim-to-disc ratio outperforms cup-to-disc ratio for glaucoma prescreening. Sci Rep 2019;9:1–9.doi:10.1038/s41598-019-43385-2
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    24. ↵
      2. Henderer JD ,
      3. Liu C ,
      4. Kesen M , et al
      . Reliability of the disk damage likelihood scale. Am J Ophthalmol 2003;135:44–8.doi:10.1016/S0002-9394(02)01833-0 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12504696
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    25. ↵
      2. Spaeth GL ,
      3. Henderer J ,
      4. Liu C , et al
      . The disc damage likelihood scale: reproducibility of a new method of estimating the amount of optic nerve damage caused by glaucoma. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 2002;100:181–6.pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12545692
      OpenUrlPubMed
    26. ↵
      2. Buller AJ
      . Results of a glaucoma shared care model using the enhanced glaucoma staging system and disc damage likelihood scale with a novel scoring scheme in New Zealand. Clin Ophthalmol 2021;15:57–63.doi:10.2147/OPTH.S285966 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33442229
      OpenUrlPubMed
    27. ↵
      2. Sii S ,
      3. Nasser A ,
      4. Loo CY , et al
      . The impact of sign glaucoma guidelines on false-positive referrals from community optometrists in central Scotland. Br J Ophthalmol 2019;103:369–73.doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-311429 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29777044
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    28. ↵
      2. Ntim-Amponsah CT ,
      3. Amoaku WMK ,
      4. Ewusi RK , et al
      . Evaluation of risk factors for advanced glaucoma in Ghanaian patients. Eye 2005;19:528–34.doi:10.1038/sj.eye.6701533 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15297871
      OpenUrlPubMed
    29. ↵
      2. Mafwiri M ,
      3. Bowman RJC ,
      4. Wood M , et al
      . Primary open-angle glaucoma presentation at a tertiary unit in Africa: intraocular pressure levels and visual status. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2005;12:299–302.doi:10.1080/09286580500180572 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16272049
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    30. ↵
      2. Tafida A ,
      3. Kyari F ,
      4. Abdull MM , et al
      . Poverty and blindness in Nigeria: results from the National survey of blindness and visual impairment. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2015;22:333–41.doi:10.3109/09286586.2015.1077259 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26395660
      OpenUrlPubMed
    31. ↵
      2. Lane M ,
      3. Lane V ,
      4. Abbott J , et al
      . Multiple deprivation, vision loss, and ophthalmic disease in adults: global perspectives. Surv Ophthalmol 2018;63:406–36.doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2017.10.009 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29100897
      OpenUrlPubMed
    32. ↵
      2. Savini G ,
      3. Barboni P ,
      4. Carbonelli M , et al
      . Comparison of optic nerve head parameter measurements obtained by time-domain and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. J Glaucoma 2013;22:384–9.doi:10.1097/IJG.0b013e31824c9423 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22366702
      OpenUrlPubMed
    33. ↵
      2. Kolomeyer NN ,
      3. Mantravadi AV ,
      4. Brody G , et al
      . Utility of Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) in Centers For Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)-defined severe glaucoma patients. J Glaucoma 2020;29:241–4.doi:10.1097/IJG.0000000000001370
      OpenUrl
    34. ↵
      European glaucoma Society terminology and guidelines for glaucoma, 5th edition. Br J Ophthalmol 2021;105:1–169.doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2021-egsguidelines pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34675001
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @gusgazzard

    • Contributors HP, PS and MJB did the literature search. HP, PS, GG, WM and MJB designed the trial. HP, ENM, KMK, EMac, SM, AM, CDM, MJM, JAN, FAFM, IVdG, EMun and NFG collected the data. HP, KMK, MJB and DM verified the data. HP, DM and MJB did the statistical analysis. HP, DM, PS, APM, GG and MJB interpreted data. HP and MJB wrote the first draft of the research report and obtained funding. MJB and WM were the study supervisors. All authors critically revised the manuscript, had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication. HP and MJB are responsible for the overall content as the guarantors.

    • Funding The Kilimanjaro Glaucoma Intervention Programme SLT trial was funded by the Seeing is Believing Innovation Fund (no grant number), a collaboration between Standard Chartered Bank and International Agency for Prevention of Blindness, and Christian Blind Mission (no grant number). MJB is supported by The Wellcome Trust (207472/Z/17/Z). GG is employed by University College London (London, UK) and supported by grants from the National Institute for Health Research (HTA 09/104/40), Moorfields Eye Charity, British Council to Prevent Blindness, Fight for Sight and the International Glaucoma Association. GG is grateful for the support of the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology at Moorfields Eye Hospital and the University College London Institute of Ophthalmology (London, UK).

    • Competing interests GG reports personal fees from Alcon, Allergan, Belkin, Equinox, Genentech–Roche, Glaukos, Ivantis, Reichert, Sight Sciences, and Thea; grants from Belkin, Santen and Thea; and non-financial involvement with the patient advocacy group GlaucomaUK, outside the submitted work; he is also a coinvestigator on three other major SLT trials (LIGHT, COAST and Belkin laser). All other authors declare no competing interests.

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

    Linked Articles

    • Highlights from this issue
      At a glance
      Frank Larkin
      British Journal of Ophthalmology 2024; 108 i-ii Published Online First: 21 Feb 2024. doi: 10.1136/bjo-2024-325314