Heidelberg Retina Tomograph (HRT3) in Population-based Epidemiology: Normative Values and Criteria for Glaucomatous Optic Neuropathy

REFERENCES

• Quigley HA, Broman AT. The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. Br J Ophthalmol 2006;90(3):262–267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolfs RC, Borger PH, Ramrattan RS, et al. Changing views on open-angle glaucoma: definitions and prevalences–The Rotterdam Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000;41(11):3309–3321.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miglior S, Guareschi M, Romanazzi F, et al. The impact of definition of primary open-angle glaucoma on the cross-sectional assessment of diagnostic validity of Heidelberg retinal tomography. Am J Ophthalmol 2005;139(5):878–887.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bathija R, Gupta N, Zangwill L, Weinreb RN. Changing definition of glaucoma. J Glaucoma 1998;7(3):165–169.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spaeth GL, Lopes JF, Junk AK, et al. Systems for staging the amount of optic nerve damage in glaucoma: a critical review and new material. Surv Ophthalmol 2006;51(4):293–315.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin SC, Singh K, Jampel HD, et al. Optic nerve head and retinal nerve fiber layer analysis: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 2007;114(10):1937–1949.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwartz AJ, Henson DB, Harper RA, et al. The effectiveness of the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph and laser diagnostic glaucoma scanning system (GDx) in detecting and monitoring glaucoma. Health Technol Assess, 2005;9(46):1–132, iii.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trick GL, Calotti FY, Skarf B. Advances in imaging of the optic disc and retinal nerve fiber layer. J Neuroophthalmol 2006;26(4):284–295.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strouthidis NG, Garway-Heath DF. New developments in Heidelberg retina tomograph for glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2008;19(2):141–148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheuerle AF, Schmidt E, Kruse FE, Rohrschneider K. Diagnostik und Verlaufskontrolle beim Glaukom mit dem Heidelberg Retina Tomograph. [Diagnosis and follow-up in glaucoma patients using the Heidelberg retina tomograph]. Ophthalmologe 2003;100(1):5–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burgansky-Eliash Z, Wollstein G, Bilonick RA, et al. Glaucoma detection with the Heidelberg retina tomograph 3. Ophthalmology 2007;114(3):466–471.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalaboukhova L, Fridhammar V, Lindblom B. Glaucoma follow-up by the Heidelberg retina tomograph − new graphical analysis of optic disc topography changes. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2006;244(6):654–662.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uchida H, Brigatti L, Caprioli J. Detection of structural damage from glaucoma with confocal laser image analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1996;37(12):2393–2401.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miglior S, Casula M, Guareschi M, et al. Clinical ability of Heidelberg retinal tomograph examination to detect glaucomatous visual field changes. Ophthalmology 2001;108(9):1621–1627.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bathija R, Zangwill L, Berry CC, et al. Detection of early glaucomatous structural damage with confocal scanning laser tomography. J Glaucoma 1998;7(2):121–127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreras A, Pablo LE, Larrosa JM, et al. Discriminating between normal and glaucoma-damaged eyes with the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph 3. Ophthalmology 2007;115(5):775–781.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreras A, Pablo LE, Pajarin AB, et al. Diagnostic ability of the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph 3 for glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2007;145(2):354–359.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wollstein G, Garway-Heath DF, Hitchings RA. Identification of early glaucoma cases with the scanning laser ophthalmoscope. Ophthalmology 1998;105(8):1557–1563.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakano S, Takita T, Imaizumi M, Nakatsuka K. Heidelberg Retina Tomograph II topographic parameters, diagnostic capabilities of Moorfields regression analysis, and their affecting factors. Nippon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi 2006;110(12):943–949.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hatch WV, Flanagan JG, Etchells EE, et al. Laser scanning tomography of the optic nerve head in ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 1997;81(10):871–876.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abe H, Shirakashi M, Tsutsumi T, et al. Laser scanning tomography of optic discs of the normal Japanese population in a population-based setting. Ophthalmology 2009;116(2):223–230.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saito H, Tsutsumi T, Araie M, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph II version 3.0 in a population-based study: the Tajimi Study. Ophthalmology 2009;116(10):1854–1861.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreras A, Pajarin AB, Polo V, et al. Diagnostic ability of Heidelberg Retina Tomograph 3 classifications glaucoma probability score versus Moorfields regression analysis. Ophthalmology 2007;114(11):1981–1987.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kesen MR, Spaeth GL, Henderer JD, et al. The Heidelberg Retina Tomograph vs clinical impression in the diagnosis of glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2002;133(5):613–616.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofman A, Breteler MM, van Duijn CM, et al. The Rotterdam Study: objectives and design update. Eur J Epidemiol 2007;22(11):819–829.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skenduli-Bala E, de Voogd S, Wolfs RC, et al. Causes of incident visual field loss in a general elderly population: the Rotterdam study. Arch Ophthalmol 2005;123(2):233–238.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Czudowska MA, Ramdas WD, Wolfs RC, et al. Incidence of glaucomatous visual field loss: a ten-year follow-up from the Rotterdam Study. Ophthalmology 2010;117(9):1705–1712.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rolando M, Iester M, Campagna P, et al. Measurement variability in digital analysis of optic discs. Doc Ophthalmol 1994;85(3):211–222.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HRT II Glaucoma Tutorials, How to draw a contour line, Heidelberg Engineering. 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Watkins R, Panchal L, Uddin J, Gunvant P. Vertical cup-to-disc ratio: agreement between direct ophthalmoscopic estimation, fundus biomicroscopic estimation, and scanning laser ophthalmoscopic measurement. Optom Vis Sci 2003;80(6):454–459.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mikelberg F, Parfitt C, Swindale N, et al. Ability of the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph to detect early glaucomatous visual field loss. J Glaucoma 1995;4(4):242–247.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Burk RO, Noack H, Rohrschneider K, Volcker HE. Prediction of glaucomatous visual field defects by reference plane independent three-dimensional optic nerve head parameters. In: Wall M, Wild JM, editors. Perimetry Update 1998–1999: Proceedings of the XIIIth International Perimetric Society Meeting, Gardone Riviera (BS), Italy, September 6–9, 1998, Kugler, The Hague (1999):463–474.
   Google Scholar
• Swindale NV, Stjepanovic G, Chin A, Mikelberg FS. Automated analysis of normal and glaucomatous optic nerve head topography images. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000;41(7):1730–1742.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1(8476):307–310.
   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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hodapp E, Parrish RK II, Anderson DR. Clinical decisions in glaucoma. St. Louis: Mosby Co., 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Wolfs RC, Ramrattan RS, Hofman A, de Jong PT. Cup-to-disc ratio: ophthalmoscopy versus automated measurement in a general population: the Rotterdam Study. Ophthalmology 1999;106(8):1597–1601.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boland MV, Zhang L, Broman AT, et al. Comparison of optic nerve head topography and visual field in eyes with open-angle and angle-closure glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2008;115(2):239–245 e232.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alencar LM, Bowd C, Weinreb RN, et al. Comparison of HRT-3 glaucoma probability score and subjective stereophotograph assessment for prediction of progression in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008;49(5):1898–1906.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oddone F, Centofanti M, Rossetti L, et al. Exploring the Heidelberg Retinal Tomograph 3 diagnostic accuracy across disc sizes and glaucoma stages: a multicenter study. Ophthalmology, 2008;115(8): 1365.e1361–1363.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zangwill LM, Jain S, Racette L, et al. The effect of disc size and severity of disease on the diagnostic accuracy of the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph glaucoma probability score. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007;48(6):2653–2660.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coops A, Henson DB, Kwartz AJ, Artes PH. Automated analysis of Heidelberg Retina Tomograph optic disc images by glaucoma probability score. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006;47(12):5348–5355.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iester M, Mikelberg FS, Courtright P, et al. Interobserver variability of optic disk variables measured by confocal scanning laser tomography. Am J Ophthalmol 2001;132(1):57–62.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Azuara-Blanco A, Harris A, Cantor LB. Reproducibility of optic disk topographic measurements with the Topcon ImageNet and the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph. Ophthalmologica 1998;212(2):95–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatch WV, Flanagan JG, Williams-Lyn DE, et al. Interobserver agreement of Heidelberg retina tomograph parameters. J Glaucoma 1999;8(4):232–237.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miglior S, Albe E, Guareschi M, et al. Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility in the evaluation of optic disc stereometric parameters by Heidelberg Retina Tomograph. Ophthalmology 2002;109(6):1072–1077.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hermann MM, Garway-Heath DF, Jonescu-Cuypers CP, et al. Interobserver variability in confocal optic nerve analysis (HRT). Int Ophthalmol 2005;26(4-5):143–149.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Garway-Heath DF, Poinoosawmy D, Wollstein G, et al. Inter- and intraobserver variation in the analysis of optic disc images: comparison of the Heidelberg retina tomograph and computer assisted planimetry. Br J Ophthalmol 1999;83(6):664–669.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chauhan BC, LeBlanc RP, McCormick TA, Rogers JB. Test-retest variability of topographic measurements with confocal scanning laser tomography in patients with glaucoma and control subjects. Am J Ophthalmol 1994;118(1):9–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varma R, Ying-Lai M, Francis BA, et al. Prevalence of open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension in Latinos: the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Ophthalmology 2004;111(8):1439–1448.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman DS, Freeman E, Munoz B, et al. Glaucoma and mobility performance: the Salisbury Eye Evaluation Project. Ophthalmology 2007;114(12):2232–2237.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawker MJ, Vernon SA, Tattersall CL, Dua HS. Detecting glaucoma with RADAAR: the Bridlington Eye Assessment Project. Br J Ophthalmol 2006;90(6):744–748.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healey PR, Lee AJ, Aung T, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph for glaucoma a population-based assessment. Ophthalmology 2010;117(9):1667–1673.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawker MJ, Vernon SA, Ainsworth G. Specificity of the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph’s diagnostic algorithms in a normal elderly population: the Bridlington Eye Assessment Project. Ophthalmology 2006;113(5):778–785.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, et al. Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120(10):1268–1279.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mowatt G, Burr JM, Cook JA, et al. Screening tests for detecting open-angle glaucoma: systematic review and meta-analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008;49(12):5373–5385.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vernon SA, Hawker MJ, Ainsworth G, et al. Laser scanning tomography of the optic nerve head in a normal elderly population: the Bridlington eye assessment project. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005;46(8):2823–2828.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agarwal HC, Gulati V, Sihota R. The normal optic nerve head on Heidelberg Retina Tomograph II. Indian J Ophthalmol 2003;51(1):25–33.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hermann MM, Theofylaktopoulos I, Bangard N, et al. Optic nerve head morphometry in healthy adults using confocal laser scanning tomography. Br J Ophthalmol 2004;88(6):761–765.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uchida H, Yamamoto T, Araie M, et al. Topographic characteristics of the optic nerve head measured with scanning laser tomography in normal Japanese subjects. Jpn J Ophthalmol 2005;49(6):469–476.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakamura H, Maeda T, Suzuki Y, Inoue Y. Scanning laser tomography to evaluate optic discs of normal eyes. Jpn J Ophthalmol 1999;43(5):410–414.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leske MC, Connell AM, Schachat AP, Hyman L. The Barbados Eye Study. Prevalence of open angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1994;112(6):821–829.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Klein BE, Klein R, Sponsel WE, et al. Prevalence of glaucoma. The Beaver Dam Eye Study. Ophthalmology 1992;99(10):1499–1504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell P, Smith W, Attebo K, Healey PR. Prevalence of open-angle glaucoma in Australia. The Blue Mountains Eye Study. Ophthalmology 1996;103(10):1661–1669.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonomi L, Marchini G, Marraffa M, et al. Prevalence of glaucoma and intraocular pressure distribution in a defined population. The Egna-Neumarkt Study. Ophthalmology 1998;105(2):209–215.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wensor MD, McCarty CA, Stanislavsky YL, et al. The prevalence of glaucoma in the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project. Ophthalmology 1998;105(4):733–739.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahn HA, Milton RC. Alternative definitions of open-angle glaucoma. Effect on prevalence and associations in the Framingham eye study. Arch Ophthalmol 1980;98(12):2172–2177.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vijaya L, George R, Baskaran M, et al. Prevalence of primary open-angle glaucoma in an urban south Indian population and comparison with a rural population. The Chennai Glaucoma Study. Ophthalmology 2008;115(4):648–654 e641.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonasson F, Damji KF, Arnarsson A, et al. Prevalence of open-angle glaucoma in Iceland: Reykjavik Eye Study. Eye 2003;17(6):747–753.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gabriele ML, Wollstein G, Bilonick RA, et al. Comparison of parameters from Heidelberg Retina Tomographs 2 and 3. Ophthalmology 2007;115(4):693–697.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheen NJ, Aldridge C, Drasdo N, et al. The effects of astigmatism and working distance on optic nerve head images using a Heidelberg Retina Tomograph scanning laser ophthalmoscope. Am J Ophthalmol 2001;131(6):716–721.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sihota R, Gulati V, Agarwal HC, et al. Variables affecting test-retest variability of Heidelberg Retina Tomograph II stereometric parameters. J Glaucoma 2002;11(4):321–328.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heeg GP, Jansonius NM. Influence of test reliability on the screening performance of frequency-doubling perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol 2006;141(3):585–587.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar