Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia · 2008
[2% ibopamine vs. water-drinking test as a provocative test for glaucoma].
Сравнительное исследованиеАннотация на английскомСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Magacho Leopoldo, Reis Ricardo, Pigini Mara Agi, Avila Marcos Pereira de
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the 2% ibopamine provocative test with the water drinking test as a provocative test for glaucoma.
METHODS: Primary open-angle glaucoma patients and normal individuals were selected from CEROF-Universidade Federal de Goiânia UFG, and underwent the 2% ibopamine provocative test and the water drinking test in a randomized fashion, at least 1 week apart. Intraocular pressure (IOP) before and after both tests, Bland-Altman graph, sensitivity and specificity (as measured by ROC curves) were obtained for both methods.
RESULTS: Forty-seven eyes from 25 patients were included (27 eyes from 15 glaucoma patients and 20 eyes from 10 normal individuals), with a mean age of 54.2 +/- 12.7 years. The mean MD of glaucoma patients was -2.8 +/- 2.11 dB. There was no statistically difference in the baseline IOP (p=0.8) comparing glaucoma patients, but positive after the provocative tests (p=0.03), and in the IOP variation (4.4 +/- 1.3 mmHg for ibopamine and 3.2 +/- 2.2 mmHg for water drinking test, p=0.01). There was no difference in all studied parameters for normal individuals. The Bland-Altman graph showed high dispersion comparing both methods. The areas under the ROC curve were 0.987 for the ibopamine provocative test, and 0.807 for the water-drinking test.
CONCLUSION: In this selected subgroup of glaucoma patients with early visual field defect, the ibopamine provocative test has shown better sensitivity/specificity than the water drinking test.
METHODS: Primary open-angle glaucoma patients and normal individuals were selected from CEROF-Universidade Federal de Goiânia UFG, and underwent the 2% ibopamine provocative test and the water drinking test in a randomized fashion, at least 1 week apart. Intraocular pressure (IOP) before and after both tests, Bland-Altman graph, sensitivity and specificity (as measured by ROC curves) were obtained for both methods.
RESULTS: Forty-seven eyes from 25 patients were included (27 eyes from 15 glaucoma patients and 20 eyes from 10 normal individuals), with a mean age of 54.2 +/- 12.7 years. The mean MD of glaucoma patients was -2.8 +/- 2.11 dB. There was no statistically difference in the baseline IOP (p=0.8) comparing glaucoma patients, but positive after the provocative tests (p=0.03), and in the IOP variation (4.4 +/- 1.3 mmHg for ibopamine and 3.2 +/- 2.2 mmHg for water drinking test, p=0.01). There was no difference in all studied parameters for normal individuals. The Bland-Altman graph showed high dispersion comparing both methods. The areas under the ROC curve were 0.987 for the ibopamine provocative test, and 0.807 for the water-drinking test.
CONCLUSION: In this selected subgroup of glaucoma patients with early visual field defect, the ibopamine provocative test has shown better sensitivity/specificity than the water drinking test.