Spotlight on the Disc-Damage Likelihood Scale (DDLS)

References

• Quigley HA, Broman AT. The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90(3):262–267. doi:10.1136/bjo.2005.081224
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tham Y-C, Li X, Wong TY, Quigley HA, Aung T, Cheng C-Y. Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(11):2081–2090. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.05.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foster PJ, Buhrmann R, Quigley HA, Johnson GJ. The definition and classification of glaucoma in prevalence surveys. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86(2):238–242. doi:10.1136/bjo.86.2.238
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Azuara-Blanco A, Banister K, Boachie C, et al. Automated imaging technologies for the diagnosis of glaucoma: a comparative diagnostic study for the evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy, performance as triage tests and cost-effectiveness (GATE study). Health Technol Assess. 2016;20(8):1–168. doi:10.3310/hta20080
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Glaucoma Society. Terminology and Guidelines for Glaucoma. 5th ed. 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Kass MA, Heuer DK, 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(6):701–13; discussion 829–830.
   Google Scholar
• Lee EJ, Han JC, Park DY, Kee C. A neuroglia-based interpretation of glaucomatous neuroretinal rim thinning in the optic nerve head. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2020;77:100840.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonas JB, Budde WM. Diagnosis and pathogenesis of glaucomatous optic neuropathy: morphological aspects. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2000;19(1):1–40. doi:10.1016/S1350-9462(99)00002-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Medeiros FA, Zangwill LM, Bowd C, Sample PA, Weinreb RN. Use of progressive glaucomatous optic disk change as the reference standard for evaluation of diagnostic tests in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;139(6):1010–1018. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2005.01.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reus NJ, Lemij HG, Garway-Heath DF, et al. Clinical assessment of stereoscopic optic disc photographs for glaucoma: the European optic disc assessment trial. Ophthalmology. 2010;117(4):717–723. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.09.026
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu Y, Simavli H, Que CJ, et al. Patient characteristics associated with artifacts in spectralis optical coherence tomography imaging of the retinal nerve fiber layer in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2015;159(3):565–76.e2. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2014.12.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pasol J. Neuro-ophthalmic disease and optical coherence tomography: glaucoma look-alikes. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2011;22(2):124–132. doi:10.1097/ICU.0b013e328343c1a3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armaly MF. Genetic determination of cup/disc ratio of the optic nerve. Arch Ophthalmol. 1967;78(1):35–43. doi:10.1001/archopht.1967.00980030037007
   Google Scholar
• Douglas GR, Drance SM, Schulzer M. A correlation of fields and discs in open angle glaucoma. Can J Ophthalmol. 1974;9(4):391–398.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hart WM, Yablonski M, Kass MA, Becker B. Multivariate analysis of the risk of glaucomatous visual field loss. Arch Ophthalmol. 1979;97(8):1455–1458. doi:10.1001/archopht.1979.01020020117005
   Google Scholar
• Danesh-Meyer HV, Gaskin BJ, Jayusundera T, Donaldson M, Gamble GD. Comparison of disc damage likelihood scale, cup to disc ratio, and Heidelberg retina tomograph in the diagnosis of glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90(4):437–441. doi:10.1136/bjo.2005.077131
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonas JB, Budde WM, Panda-Jonas S. Ophthalmoscopic evaluation of the optic nerve head. Surv Ophthalmol. 1999;43(4):293–320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffmann EM, Zangwill LM, Crowston JG, Weinreb RN. Optic disk size and glaucoma. Surv Ophthalmol. 2007;52(1):32–49. doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2006.10.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsai CS, Zangwill L, Gonzalez C, et al. Ethnic differences in optic nerve head topography. J Glaucoma. 1995;4(4):248–257. doi:10.1097/00061198-199508000-00006
   Google Scholar
• Budde WM, Jonas JB, Martus P, Gründler AE. Influence of optic disc size on neuroretinal rim shape in healthy eyes. J Glaucoma. 2000;9(5):357–362. doi:10.1097/00061198-200010000-00003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonas JB, Schmidt AM, Müller-Bergh JA, Schlötzer-Schrehardt UM, Naumann GO. Human optic nerve fiber count and optic disc size. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1992;33(6):2012–2018.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caprioli J, Miller JM. Videographic measurements of optic nerve topography in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1988;29(8):1294–1298.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caprioli J. Discrimination between normal and glaucomatous eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1992;33(1):153–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tatham AJ, Weinreb RN, Zangwill LM, Liebmann JM, Girkin CA, Medeiros FA. The relationship between cup-to-disc ratio and estimated number of retinal ganglion cells. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54(5):3205–3214. doi:10.1167/iovs.12-11467
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spaeth GL, Henderer J, 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;100:181–5; discussion 185–186.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Spaeth GL, Lopes JF, Junk AK, Grigorian AP, Henderer J. Systems for staging the amount of optic nerve damage in glaucoma: a critical review and new material. Surv Ophthalmol. 2006;51(4):293–315. doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2006.04.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Glaucoma referral and safe discharge: a national clinical guideline [Internet]. Edinburgh: SIGN; 2015. Available from: https://www.sign.ac.uk/. Accessed September 18, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Henderer JD, Liu C, Kesen M, et al. Reliability of the disk damage likelihood scale. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;135(1):44–48. doi:10.1016/S0002-9394(02)01833-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bochmann F, Howell JP, Meier C, Becht C, Thiel MA. The disc damage likelihood scale (DDLS): interobserver agreement of a new grading system to assess glaucomatous optic disc damage. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd. 2009;226(4):280–283. doi:10.1055/s-0028-1109288
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bayer A, Harasymowycz P, Henderer JD, Steinmann WG, Spaeth GL. Validity of a new disk grading scale for estimating glaucomatous damage: correlation with visual field damage. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;133(6):758–763. doi:10.1016/S0002-9394(02)01422-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee KH, Park KH, Kim DM, Youn DH. Relationship between optic nerve head parameters of Heidelberg Retina Tomograph and visual field defects in primary open-angle glaucoma. Korean J Ophthalmol. 1996;10(1):24–28. doi:10.3341/kjo.1996.10.1.24
   Google Scholar
• Iester M, Mikelberg FS, Courtright P, Drance SM. Correlation between the visual field indices and Heidelberg retina tomograph parameters. J Glaucoma. 1997;6(2):78–82. doi:10.1097/00061198-199704000-00002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caprioli J, Miller JM. Correlation of structure and function in glaucoma. Quantitative measurements of disc and field. Ophthalmology. 1988;95(6):723–727. doi:10.1016/S0161-6420(88)33116-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gloster J. Quantitative relationship between cupping of the optic disc and visual field loss in chronic simple glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 1978;62(10):665–669. doi:10.1136/bjo.62.10.665
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garway-Heath DF, Poinoosawmy D, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA. Mapping the visual field to the optic disc in normal tension glaucoma eyes. Ophthalmology. 2000;107(10):1809–1815. doi:10.1016/S0161-6420(00)00284-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Danesh-Meyer HV, Ku JYF, Papchenko TL, Jayasundera T, Hsiang JC, Gamble GD. Regional correlation of structure and function in glaucoma, using the disc damage likelihood scale, Heidelberg Retina Tomograph, and visual fields. Ophthalmology. 2006;113(4):603–611. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2005.10.055
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kara-José AC, Melo LASJ, Esporcatte BLB, Endo ATNH, Leite MT, Tavares IM. The disc damage likelihood scale: diagnostic accuracy and correlations with cup-to-disc ratio, structural tests and standard automated perimetry. PLoS One. 2017;12(7):e0181428. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0181428
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderer J, Wang Y, Bayer A, Altangerel U, Schwartz L, Schmidt C. Evaluating a new disc staging scale for glaucomatous damage: the ability to detect change over time. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2009;19(3):404–410. doi:10.1177/112067210901900313
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abdul Majid ASB, Kwag JH, Jung SH, Yim HB, Kim YD, Kang KD. Correlation between disc damage likelihood scale and optical coherence tomography in the diagnosis of glaucoma. Ophthalmol J Int. 2010;224(5):274–282.
   Google Scholar
• Ungar AK, Wollstein G, Ishikawa H, et al. Evaluating objective and subjective quantitative parameters at the initial visit to predict future glaucomatous visual field progression. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging. 2012;43(5):416–424. doi:10.3928/15428877-20120524-01
   Google Scholar
• Pahlitzsch M, Torun N, Erb C, et al. Significance of the disc damage likelihood scale objectively measured by a non-mydriatic fundus camera in preperimetric glaucoma. Clin Ophthalmol. 2015;9:2147–2158. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S93213
   Google Scholar
• Kumar JRH, Seelamantula CS, Kamath YS, Jampala R. Rim-to-disc ratio outperforms cup-to-disc ratio for glaucoma prescreening. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):7099. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-43385-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ichhpujani P, Rome JE, Jindal A, et al. Comparative study of 3 techniques to detect a relative afferent pupillary defect. J Glaucoma. 2011;20(9):535–539. doi:10.1097/IJG.0b013e3181f464e8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang AY, Lu L, Ali M, et al. Disc-Damage Likelihood Scale (DDLS) as a clinical indicator of the presence of a Relative Afferent Pupillary Defect (RAPD). J Glaucoma. 2016;25(10):e910–6. doi:10.1097/IJG.0000000000000425
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ekici F, Loh R, Waisbourd M, et al. Relationships between measures of the ability to perform vision-related activities, vision-related quality of life, and clinical findings in patients with glaucoma. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015;133(12):1377–1385. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2015.3426
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radius RL, Anderson DR. The histology of retinal nerve fiber layer bundles and bundle defects. Arch Ophthalmol. 1979;97(5):948–950. doi:10.1001/archopht.1979.01020010506027
   Google Scholar
• Ye C, Yu M, Leung CK-S. Impact of segmentation errors and retinal blood vessels on retinal nerve fibre layer measurements using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 2016;94(3):e211–219. doi:10.1111/aos.12762
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreras A, Pablo LE, Pajarín AB, Larrosa JM, Polo V, Pueyo V. Diagnostic ability of the Heidelberg retina tomograph 3 for glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;145(2):354–359. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2007.09.039
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reus NJ, Lemij HG. Diagnostic accuracy of the GDx VCC for glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2004;111(10):1860–1865. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.04.024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu H, de Boer JF, Chen TC. Diagnostic capability of spectral-domain optical coherence tomography for glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153(5):815–826.e2. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2011.09.032
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akashi A, Kanamori A, Nakamura M, Fujihara M, Yamada Y, Negi A. Comparative assessment for the ability of Cirrus, RTVue, and 3D-OCT to diagnose glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54(7):4478–4484. doi:10.1167/iovs.12-11268
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oddone F, Centofanti M, Tanga L, et al. Influence of disc size on optic nerve head versus retinal nerve fiber layer assessment for diagnosing glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(7):1340–1347.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Medeiros FA, Zangwill LM, Bowd C, Weinreb RN. Comparison of the GDx VCC scanning laser polarimeter, HRT II confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope, and stratus OCT optical coherence tomograph for the detection of glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122(6):827–837. doi:10.1001/archopht.122.6.827
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mwanza J-C, Durbin MK, Budenz DL, et al. Glaucoma diagnostic accuracy of ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer thickness: comparison with nerve fiber layer and optic nerve head. Ophthalmology. 2012;119(6):1151–1158. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.12.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De León-ortega JE, Sakata LM, Monheit BE, McGwin G, Arthur SN, Girkin CA. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of Heidelberg retina tomograph II and Heidelberg retina tomograph 3 to discriminate glaucomatous and nonglaucomatous eyes. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;144(4):525–532. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2007.06.021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Badalà F, Nouri-Mahdavi K, Raoof DA, Leeprechanon N, Law SK, Caprioli J. Optic disk and nerve fiber layer imaging to detect glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;144(5):724–732. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2007.07.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michelessi M, Lucenteforte E, Oddone F, et al. Optic nerve head and fibre layer imaging for diagnosing glaucoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;30(11):CD008803.
   Google Scholar
• Banister K, Boachie C, Bourne R, et al. Can automated imaging for optic disc and retinal nerve fiber layer analysis aid glaucoma detection? Ophthalmology. 2016;123(5):930–938. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.01.041
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chauhan BC, O’Leary N, AlMobarak FA, et al. Enhanced detection of open-angle glaucoma with an anatomically accurate optical coherence tomography-derived neuroretinal rim parameter. Ophthalmology. 2013;120(3):535–543. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.09.055
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reis ASC, O’Leary N, Yang H, et al. Influence of clinically invisible, but optical coherence tomography detected, optic disc margin anatomy on neuroretinal rim evaluation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53(4):1852–1860. doi:10.1167/iovs.11-9309
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Danthurebandara VM, Vianna JR, Sharpe GP, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of glaucoma with sector-based and a new total profile-based analysis of neuroretinal rim and retinal nerve fiber layer thickness. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016;57(1):181–187. doi:10.1167/iovs.15-17820
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malik R, Belliveau AC, Sharpe GP, Shuba LM, Chauhan BC, Nicolela MT. Diagnostic accuracy of optical coherence tomography and scanning laser tomography for identifying glaucoma in myopic eyes. Ophthalmology. 2016;123(6):1181–1189. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.01.052
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enders P, Adler W, Kiessling D, et al. Evaluation of two-dimensional Bruch’s membrane opening minimum rim area for glaucoma diagnostics in a large patient cohort. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 2019;97(1):60–67. doi:10.1111/aos.13698
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chauhan BC, Danthurebandara VM, Sharpe GP, et al. Bruch’s membrane opening minimum rim width and retinal nerve fiber layer thickness in a normal white population: a multicenter study. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(9):1786–1794. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.06.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spaeth GL, Reddy SC. Imaging of the optic disk in caring for patients with glaucoma: ophthalmoscopy and photography remain the gold standard. Surv Ophthalmol. 2014;59(4):454–458. doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2013.10.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leite MT, Rao HL, Weinreb RN, et al. Agreement among spectral-domain optical coherence tomography instruments for assessing retinal nerve fiber layer thickness. Am J Ophthalmol. 2011;151(1):85–92.e1. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2010.06.041
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreno-Montañés J, Antón A, García N, Olmo N, Morilla A, Fallon M. Comparison of retinal nerve fiber layer thickness values using stratus optical coherence tomography and Heidelberg retina tomograph-III. J Glaucoma. 2009;18(7):528–534. doi:10.1097/IJG.0b013e318193c29f
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jampel HD, Friedman D, Quigley H, et al. Agreement among glaucoma specialists in assessing progressive disc changes from photographs in open-angle glaucoma patients. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009;147(1):39–44.e1. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2008.07.023
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waisbourd M, Bond EA, Sullivan T, et al. Evaluation of nonmydriatic hand-held optic disc photography grading in the Philadelphia glaucoma detection and treatment project. J Glaucoma. 2016;25(5):e520–525. doi:10.1097/IJG.0000000000000382
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi YR, Lee SH. Optic disc measurements with stereophotograph in normal eyes. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1999;40(12):3437–3445.
   Google Scholar
• Kitaoka Y, Tanito M, Yokoyama Y, et al. Estimation of the disc damage likelihood scale in primary open-angle glaucoma: the glaucoma stereo analysis study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2016;254(3):523–528. doi:10.1007/s00417-015-3239-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han JW, Cho SY, Kang KD. Correlation between optic nerve parameters obtained using 3D nonmydriatic retinal camera and optical coherence tomography: interobserver agreement on the disc damage likelihood scale. J Ophthalmol. 2014;2014:931738. doi:10.1155/2014/931738
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sii S, Nasser A, Loo CY, Croghan C, Rotchford A, Agarwal PK. The impact of SIGN glaucoma guidelines on false-positive referrals from community optometrists in Central Scotland. Br J Ophthalmol. 2019;103(3):369–373. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-311429
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Formichella P, Annoh R, Zeri F, Tatham AJ. The role of the disc damage likelihood scale in glaucoma detection by community optometrists. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2020;40(6):752–759. doi:10.1111/opo.12734
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouacheria M, Cherfa Y, Cherfa A, Belkhamsa N. Automatic glaucoma screening using optic nerve head measurements and random forest classifier on fundus images. Phys Eng Sci Med. 2020;43(4):1265–1277. doi:10.1007/s13246-020-00930-y
   Google Scholar
• Iutaka NA, Grochowski RA, Kasahara N. Correlation between visual field index and other functional and structural measures in glaucoma patients and suspects. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2017;12(1):53–57. doi:10.4103/jovr.jovr_98_16
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dervisevic E, Pavljasevic S, Dervisevic A, Kasumovic SS. Challenges in early glaucoma detection. Med Arch. 2016;70(3):203–207.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chandra A, Bandyopadhyay AK, Bhaduri G. A comparative study of two methods of optic disc evaluation in patients of glaucoma. Oman J Ophthalmol. 2013;6(2):103–107. doi:10.4103/0974-620X.116643
   Google Scholar
• Zangalli C, Gupta SR, Spaeth GL. The disc as the basis of treatment for glaucoma. Saudi J Ophthalmol. 2011;25(4):381–387. doi:10.1016/j.sjopt.2011.07.003
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hornova J, Jbv KN, Prasad A, Freitas DGJ, Nunes CM. Correlation of disc damage likelihood scale, visual field, and Heidelberg retina tomograph II in patients with glaucoma. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2008;18(5):739–747. doi:10.1177/112067210801800513
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderer JD. Disc damage likelihood scale. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90(4):395–396. doi:10.1136/bjo.2005.083360
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar