Archives of ophthalmology (Chicago, Ill. : 1960) · 2003
Classification of visual field abnormalities in the ocular hypertension treatment study.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка службы здравоохранения СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Keltner John L, Johnson Chris A, Cello Kimberly E, Edwards Mary A, Bandermann Shannan E, Kass Michael A, Gordon Mae O, Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study Group
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: (1) To develop a classification system for visual field (VF) abnormalities, (2) to determine interreader and test-retest agreement, and (3) to determine the frequency of various VF defects in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study.
METHODS: Follow-up VFs are performed every 6 months and are monitored for abnormality, indicated by a glaucoma hemifield test result or a corrected pattern SD outside the normal limits. As of January 1, 2002, 1636 patients had 2509 abnormal VFs. Three readers independently classified each hemifield using a classification system developed at the VF reading center. A subset (50%) of the abnormal VFs was reread to evaluate test-retest reader agreement. A mean deviation was calculated separately for the hemifields as an index to the severity of VF loss.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A 97% interreader hemifield agreement.
RESULTS: The average hemifield classification agreement (between any 2 of 3 readers) for 5018 hemifields was 97% and 88% for the 1266 abnormal VFs that were reread (agreement between the first and second classifications). Glaucomatous patterns of loss (partial arcuate, paracentral, and nasal step defects) composed the majority of VF defects.
CONCLUSION: The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study classification system has high reproducibility and provides a possible nomenclature for characterizing VF defects.
METHODS: Follow-up VFs are performed every 6 months and are monitored for abnormality, indicated by a glaucoma hemifield test result or a corrected pattern SD outside the normal limits. As of January 1, 2002, 1636 patients had 2509 abnormal VFs. Three readers independently classified each hemifield using a classification system developed at the VF reading center. A subset (50%) of the abnormal VFs was reread to evaluate test-retest reader agreement. A mean deviation was calculated separately for the hemifields as an index to the severity of VF loss.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A 97% interreader hemifield agreement.
RESULTS: The average hemifield classification agreement (between any 2 of 3 readers) for 5018 hemifields was 97% and 88% for the 1266 abnormal VFs that were reread (agreement between the first and second classifications). Glaucomatous patterns of loss (partial arcuate, paracentral, and nasal step defects) composed the majority of VF defects.
CONCLUSION: The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study classification system has high reproducibility and provides a possible nomenclature for characterizing VF defects.