Reliability of visual field index in staging glaucomatous visual field damage

Neetha Kuzhuppilly, Shilpa Patil, Shibi Dev, Aditya Deo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Introduction: Standard automated perimetry is integral to the testing of visual function in glaucoma. Classification of glaucomatous visual field defects into different severity levels is important to guide effective management; but the available classification systems may be cumbersome and impractical on a daily basis. Aim: To quantify, correlate and analyse the relation between Visual Field Index (VFI) and the stages of glaucomatous field damage as defined by Hodapp Parrish Anderson (HPA). To check the validity of Glaucoma Staging Indices (GSI), which is a new glaucomatous field classification system dependent on VFI. Materials and Methods: The study was a prospective, observational analysis of consecutive visual field tests done between August 2015 and March 2016. The Institutional Ethical Committee approved the protocol, and participants who gave written informed consent were included in the study. Patients underwent a comprehensive eye examination including standard automated perimetry with Humphrey Visual Field Analyser. Data was collected from each visual field and the fields were evaluated and classified into four stages-Normal, Early defect, Moderate defect or Severe defect based on HPA classification. HPA and Geological Strength Index (GSI) classification systems were compared and analysed with Kappa analysis. Results: Analysis of 170 visual fields of 95 patients showed that VFI was significantly different between Normal, Early defect, Moderate defect and Severe defects as classified with HPA staging, p<0.001. VFI had strong positive correlation with Mean Deviation (MD), r=0.984, p<0.001 and non-linear correlation with Pattern Standard Deviation (PSD), r =-0.472, p<0.001. On comparing HPA staging with GSI, κ=0.633, p<0.001. VFI, MD and PSD in each of the severity stages across the two classification systems showed no significant differences (p>0.05). Conclusion: In established glaucoma, GSI is a good dependable staging system. It is readily available on the single field print out and can be a quick reference for decision making in the management of glaucoma patients.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)NC05-NC08
JournalJournal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research
Volume12
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01-06-2018
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Visual Fields
Glaucoma
Defects
Visual Field Tests
Informed Consent
Decision Making
Decision making
Testing

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Clinical Biochemistry

Cite this

Kuzhuppilly, Neetha ; Patil, Shilpa ; Dev, Shibi ; Deo, Aditya. / Reliability of visual field index in staging glaucomatous visual field damage. In: Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. 2018 ; Vol. 12, No. 6. pp. NC05-NC08.
@article{df26caed65524a869d3d15805c02a3b9,
title = "Reliability of visual field index in staging glaucomatous visual field damage",
abstract = "Introduction: Standard automated perimetry is integral to the testing of visual function in glaucoma. Classification of glaucomatous visual field defects into different severity levels is important to guide effective management; but the available classification systems may be cumbersome and impractical on a daily basis. Aim: To quantify, correlate and analyse the relation between Visual Field Index (VFI) and the stages of glaucomatous field damage as defined by Hodapp Parrish Anderson (HPA). To check the validity of Glaucoma Staging Indices (GSI), which is a new glaucomatous field classification system dependent on VFI. Materials and Methods: The study was a prospective, observational analysis of consecutive visual field tests done between August 2015 and March 2016. The Institutional Ethical Committee approved the protocol, and participants who gave written informed consent were included in the study. Patients underwent a comprehensive eye examination including standard automated perimetry with Humphrey Visual Field Analyser. Data was collected from each visual field and the fields were evaluated and classified into four stages-Normal, Early defect, Moderate defect or Severe defect based on HPA classification. HPA and Geological Strength Index (GSI) classification systems were compared and analysed with Kappa analysis. Results: Analysis of 170 visual fields of 95 patients showed that VFI was significantly different between Normal, Early defect, Moderate defect and Severe defects as classified with HPA staging, p<0.001. VFI had strong positive correlation with Mean Deviation (MD), r=0.984, p<0.001 and non-linear correlation with Pattern Standard Deviation (PSD), r =-0.472, p<0.001. On comparing HPA staging with GSI, κ=0.633, p<0.001. VFI, MD and PSD in each of the severity stages across the two classification systems showed no significant differences (p>0.05). Conclusion: In established glaucoma, GSI is a good dependable staging system. It is readily available on the single field print out and can be a quick reference for decision making in the management of glaucoma patients.",
author = "Neetha Kuzhuppilly and Shilpa Patil and Shibi Dev and Aditya Deo",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.7860/JCDR/2018/34541.11620",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
pages = "NC05--NC08",
journal = "Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research",
issn = "2249-782X",
publisher = "Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research",
number = "6",

}

Reliability of visual field index in staging glaucomatous visual field damage. / Kuzhuppilly, Neetha; Patil, Shilpa; Dev, Shibi; Deo, Aditya.

In: Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, Vol. 12, No. 6, 01.06.2018, p. NC05-NC08.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reliability of visual field index in staging glaucomatous visual field damage

AU - Kuzhuppilly, Neetha

AU - Patil, Shilpa

AU - Dev, Shibi

AU - Deo, Aditya

PY - 2018/6/1

Y1 - 2018/6/1

N2 - Introduction: Standard automated perimetry is integral to the testing of visual function in glaucoma. Classification of glaucomatous visual field defects into different severity levels is important to guide effective management; but the available classification systems may be cumbersome and impractical on a daily basis. Aim: To quantify, correlate and analyse the relation between Visual Field Index (VFI) and the stages of glaucomatous field damage as defined by Hodapp Parrish Anderson (HPA). To check the validity of Glaucoma Staging Indices (GSI), which is a new glaucomatous field classification system dependent on VFI. Materials and Methods: The study was a prospective, observational analysis of consecutive visual field tests done between August 2015 and March 2016. The Institutional Ethical Committee approved the protocol, and participants who gave written informed consent were included in the study. Patients underwent a comprehensive eye examination including standard automated perimetry with Humphrey Visual Field Analyser. Data was collected from each visual field and the fields were evaluated and classified into four stages-Normal, Early defect, Moderate defect or Severe defect based on HPA classification. HPA and Geological Strength Index (GSI) classification systems were compared and analysed with Kappa analysis. Results: Analysis of 170 visual fields of 95 patients showed that VFI was significantly different between Normal, Early defect, Moderate defect and Severe defects as classified with HPA staging, p<0.001. VFI had strong positive correlation with Mean Deviation (MD), r=0.984, p<0.001 and non-linear correlation with Pattern Standard Deviation (PSD), r =-0.472, p<0.001. On comparing HPA staging with GSI, κ=0.633, p<0.001. VFI, MD and PSD in each of the severity stages across the two classification systems showed no significant differences (p>0.05). Conclusion: In established glaucoma, GSI is a good dependable staging system. It is readily available on the single field print out and can be a quick reference for decision making in the management of glaucoma patients.

AB - Introduction: Standard automated perimetry is integral to the testing of visual function in glaucoma. Classification of glaucomatous visual field defects into different severity levels is important to guide effective management; but the available classification systems may be cumbersome and impractical on a daily basis. Aim: To quantify, correlate and analyse the relation between Visual Field Index (VFI) and the stages of glaucomatous field damage as defined by Hodapp Parrish Anderson (HPA). To check the validity of Glaucoma Staging Indices (GSI), which is a new glaucomatous field classification system dependent on VFI. Materials and Methods: The study was a prospective, observational analysis of consecutive visual field tests done between August 2015 and March 2016. The Institutional Ethical Committee approved the protocol, and participants who gave written informed consent were included in the study. Patients underwent a comprehensive eye examination including standard automated perimetry with Humphrey Visual Field Analyser. Data was collected from each visual field and the fields were evaluated and classified into four stages-Normal, Early defect, Moderate defect or Severe defect based on HPA classification. HPA and Geological Strength Index (GSI) classification systems were compared and analysed with Kappa analysis. Results: Analysis of 170 visual fields of 95 patients showed that VFI was significantly different between Normal, Early defect, Moderate defect and Severe defects as classified with HPA staging, p<0.001. VFI had strong positive correlation with Mean Deviation (MD), r=0.984, p<0.001 and non-linear correlation with Pattern Standard Deviation (PSD), r =-0.472, p<0.001. On comparing HPA staging with GSI, κ=0.633, p<0.001. VFI, MD and PSD in each of the severity stages across the two classification systems showed no significant differences (p>0.05). Conclusion: In established glaucoma, GSI is a good dependable staging system. It is readily available on the single field print out and can be a quick reference for decision making in the management of glaucoma patients.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85048205264&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85048205264&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.7860/JCDR/2018/34541.11620

DO - 10.7860/JCDR/2018/34541.11620

M3 - Article

VL - 12

SP - NC05-NC08

JO - Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research

JF - Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research

SN - 2249-782X

IS - 6

ER -