Specificity of the Program Threshold Noiseless Trend for Perimetric Progression Analysis

REFERENCES

• Johnson CA, Sample PA, Cioffi GA, et al. Structure and function evaluation (SAFE): I. Criteria for glaucomatous visual field loss using standard automated perimetry (SAP) and short wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP). Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;134:177–185.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Artes PH, Chauhan BC. Longitudinal changes in the visual field and optic disc in glaucoma. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2005;24:333–354.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spry PG, Bates AB, Johnson CA, et al. Simulation of longitudinal threshold visual field data. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:2192–2200.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vesti E, Johnson CA, Chauhan BC. Comparison of different methods for detecting glaucomatous visual field progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:3873–3879.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayama C, Araie M, Suzuki Y, et al. Statistical evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of methods used to determine the progression of visual field defects in glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2004;111:2117–2125.
   Google Scholar
• Gardiner SK, Crabb DP. Examination of different pointwise linear regression methods for determining visual field progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:1400–1407.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonzalez de la Rosa M, Gonzalez-Hernandez M, Diaz-Aleman T. Linear regression analysis of the cumulative defect curve by sectors and other criteria of glaucomatous visual field progression. Europ J Ophthalmol. 2009;19:416–424.
   Google Scholar
• Bebie H, Flammer J, Bebie T. The cumulative defect curve: Separation of local and diffuse components of visual field damage. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1989;227:9–12.
   Google Scholar
• Gonzalez de la Rosa M, Gonzalez-Hernandez M, Diaz Aleman T, et al. Stabilization and comparison of TOP and Bracketing perimetric strategies using a threshold spatial filter. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2007;245:1303–1309.
   Google Scholar
• Morales J, Weitzman M, Gonzalez de la Rosa M. Comparison between tendency-oriented-perimetry (TOP) and Octopus threshold perimetry. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:134–142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonzalez de la Rosa M, Gonzalez-Hernandez M, Garcia Feijoo J, et al. Diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility of tendency oriented perimetry in glaucoma. Europ J Ophthalmol. 2006;16:259–267.
   Google Scholar
• Wollstein G, Garway-Heath DF, Hitchings RA. Identification of early glaucoma cases with the scanning laser ophthalmoscope. Ophthalmology. 1998;105:1557–1563.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henson DB, Chaudry S, Artes PH, et al. Response variability in the visual field: Comparison of optic neuritis, glaucoma, ocular hypertension, and normal eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;41:417–421.
   Google Scholar
• Bengtsson B, Olsson J, Heijl A, et al. A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry, SITA. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1997;75:368–375.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zeyen T, Roche M, Brigatti L, et al. Formulas for conversion between Octopus and Humphrey threshold values and indices. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1995;233:627–634.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diaz-Aleman VT, Anton A, Gonzalez de la Rosa M, et al. Detection of visual field deterioration by glaucoma progression analysis and threshold noiseless trend programs. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009;93:322–328.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morales J, Weitzman M, Gonzalez de la Rosa M. A preliminary comparison between tendency oriented perimetry (TOP) and traditional threshold perimetry. Ophthalmology. 1000;107:134–142.
   Google Scholar
• Gonzalez de la Rosa M, Morales J, Dannheim F, et al. Multicenter evaluation of tendency oriented perimetry (TOP) using the G1 grid. Europ J Ophthalmol. 2003;13:32–41.
   Google Scholar
• Henson DB, Chaudry S, Artes PH, et al. Response variability in the visual field: Comparison of optic neuritis, glaucoma, ocular hypertension, and normal eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:417–421.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonzalez de la Rosa M. Method to increase the sensitivity of perimetric trend progression analysis. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008;92;1564–1565.
   Google Scholar
• Chauhan BC, Garway-Heath DF, Goñi FJ, et al. Practical recommendations for measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008;92:569–573.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardiner SK, Crabb DP. Frequency of testing for detecting visual field progression. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86;560–564.
   Google Scholar
• Nouri-Mahdavi K, Brigatti L, Weitzman M, et al. Comparison of methods to detect visual field progression in glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1997;104:1228–1236.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkins MR, Fitzke FW, Khaw PT. Pointwise linear progression criteria and the detection of visual field change in a glaucoma trial. Eye. 2006;20:98–106.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar