SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Artes PH, Iwase A, Ohno Y, Kitazawa Y & Chauhan BC (2002): Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from Full Threshold, SITA Standard, and SITA Fast strategies. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 43: 26542659.
  • Artes PH, Hutchison DM, Nicolela MT, LeBlanc RP & Chauhan BC (2005): Threshold and variability properties of matrix frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 46: 24512457.
  • Bengtsson B (2000): Reliability of computerized perimetric threshold tests as assessed by reliability indices and threshold reproducibility in patients with suspect and manifest glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 78: 519522.
  • Bengtsson B & Heijl A (1998a): Evaluation of a new perimetric threshold strategy, SITA, in patients with manifest and suspect glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 76: 268272.
  • Bengtsson B & Heijl A (1998b): SITA Fast, a new rapid perimetric threshold test. Description of methods and evaluation in patients with manifest and suspect glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 76: 431437.
  • Bengtsson B & Heijl A (2008): A visual field index for calculation of glaucoma rate of progression. Am J Ophthalmol 145: 343353.
  • Bengtsson B, Leske MC, Hyman L & Heijl A (2007): Fluctuation of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression in the early manifest glaucoma trial. Ophthalmology 114: 205209.
  • Bengtsson B, Patella VM & Heijl A (2009): Prediction of glaucomatous visual field loss by extrapolation of linear trends. Arch Ophthalmol 127: 16101615.
  • Bhandari A, Crabb DP, Poinoosawmy D, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA & Noureddin BN (1997): Effect of surgery on visual field progression in normal-tension glaucoma. Ophthalmology 104: 11311137.
  • Bjerre A, Grigg JR, Parry NR & Henson DB (2004): Test-retest variability of multifocal visual evoked potential and SITA standard perimetry in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 45: 40354040.
  • Blumenthal EZ, Sample PA, Zangwill L, Lee AC, Kono Y & Weinreb RN (2000): Comparison of long-term variability for standard and short-wavelength automated perimetry in stable glaucoma patients. Am J Ophthalmol 129: 309313.
  • Blumenthal EZ, Sample PA, Berry CC, Lee AC, Girkin CA, Zangwill L, Caprioli J & Weinreb RN (2003): Evaluating several sources of variability for standard and SWAP visual fields in glaucoma patients, suspects, and normals. Ophthalmology 110: 18951902.
  • Brauner SC, Chen TC, Hutchinson BT, Chang MA, Pasquale LR & Grosskreutz CL (2006): The course of glaucoma during pregnancy: a retrospective case series. Arch Ophthalmol 124: 10891094.
  • Chauhan BC & Johnson CA (1999): Test-retest variability of frequency-doubling perimetry and conventional perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal subjects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 40: 648656.
  • Chen PP (2002): Correlation of visual field progression between eyes in patients with open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology 109: 20932099.
  • Chen PP (2003): Blindness in patients with treated open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology 110: 726733.
  • Chen PP & Park RJ (2000): Visual field progression in patients with initially unilateral visual field loss from chronic open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology 107: 16881692.
  • Coleman AL & Miglior S (2008): Risk factors for glaucoma onset and progression. Surv Ophthalmol 53(suppl 1): 310.
  • Diaz Aleman VT, Anton A, de la Rosa MG, Johnson ZK, McLeod S & Azuara Blanco A (2009): Detection of visual-field deterioration by Glaucoma Progression Analysis and Threshold Noiseless Trend programs. Br J Ophthalmol 93: 322328.
  • Diestelhorst M, Khalili MA & Krieglstein GK (1998): Trabeculectomy: a retrospective follow-up of 700 eyes. Int Ophthalmol 22: 211220.
  • Ernest PJ, Viechtbauer W, Schouten JS, Beckers HJ, Hendrikse F, Prins MH & Webers CA (2010): The influence of the assessment method on the incidence of visual field progression in glaucoma: a network meta-analysis. Acta Ophthalmol [Epub ahead of print].
  • Fitzke FW, Crabb DP, McNaught AI, Edgar DF & Hitchings RA (1995): Image processing of computerised visual field data. Br J Ophthalmol 79: 207212.
  • Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA, Poinoosawmy D, McNaught AI & Crabb DP (1996): Analysis of visual field progression in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 80: 4048.
  • van Gestel A, Webers CA, Beckers HJ, van Dongen MC, Severens JL, Hendrikse F & Schouten JS (2010): The relationship between visual field loss in glaucoma and health-related quality-of-life. Eye (Lond) 24: 17591769.
  • Gillespie BW, Musch DC, Guire KE, Mills RP, Lichter PR, Janz NK & Wren PA (2003): The collaborative initial glaucoma treatment study: baseline visual field and test-retest variability. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44: 26132620.
  • Girkin CA, Emdadi A, Sample PA, Blumenthal EZ, Lee AC, Zangwill LM & Weinreb RN (2000): Short-wavelength automated perimetry and standard perimetry in the detection of progressive optic disc cupping. Arch Ophthalmol 118: 12311236.
  • Gutierrez P, Wilson MR, Johnson C et al. (1997): Influence of glaucomatous visual field loss on health-related quality of life. Arch Ophthalmol 115: 777784.
  • Heijl A, Bengtsson B, Chauhan BC, Lieberman MF, Cunliffe I, Hyman L & Leske MC (2008): A comparison of visual field progression criteria of 3 major glaucoma trials in early manifest glaucoma trial patients. Ophthalmology 115: 15571565.
  • Higgins JPT & Green S (eds) (2005): Glossary. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.5 [The Cochrane Collaboration web site]. Available at: http://www.cochrane.org/resources/handbook/. Accessed May 18, 2010.
  • Jampel HD, Vitale S, Ding Y, Quigley H, Friedman D, Congdon N & Zeimer R (2006): Test-retest variability in structural and functional parameters of glaucoma damage in the glaucoma imaging longitudinal study. J Glaucoma 15: 152157.
  • Kashiwagi K, Hosaka O, Kashiwagi F et al. (2001): Systemic circulatory parameters. comparison between patients with normal tension glaucoma and normal subjects using ambulatory monitoring. Jpn J Ophthalmol 45: 388396.
  • Katz J (2000): A comparison of the pattern- and total deviation-based Glaucoma Change Probability programs. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41: 10121016.
  • Katz J, Quigley HA & Sommer A (1995): Repeatability of the Glaucoma Hemifield Test in automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 36: 16581664.
  • Katz J, Congdon N & Friedman DS (1999): Methodological variations in estimating apparent progressive visual field loss in clinical trials of glaucoma treatment. Arch Ophthalmol 117: 11371142.
  • Kim JW & Chen PP (2004): Central corneal pachymetry and visual field progression in patients with open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology 111: 21262132.
  • Knottnerus JA (2002): The evidence base of clinical diagnosis. London: BMJ Books 125132.
  • Kobelt G, Jonsson B, Bergstrom A, Chen E, Linden C & Alm A (2006): Cost-effectiveness analysis in glaucoma: what drives utility? Results from a pilot study in Sweden. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 84: 363371.
  • Lee AC, Sample PA, Blumenthal EZ, Berry C, Zangwill L & Weinreb RN (2002): Infrequent confirmation of visual field progression. Ophthalmology 109: 10591065.
  • Lee YA, Shih YF, Lin LLK, Huang JY & Wang TH (2008): Association between high myopia and progression of visual field loss in primary open-angle glaucoma. J Formos Med Assoc 107: 952957.
  • Martinez Bello C, Chauhan BC, Nicolela MT, McCormick TA & Leblanc RP (2000): Intraocular pressure and progression of glaucomatous visual field loss. Am J Ophthalmol 129: 302308.
  • Mayama C, Araie M, Suzuki Y et al. (2004): Statistical evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of methods used to determine the progression of visual field defects in glaucoma. Ophthalmology 111: 21172125.
  • McKean Cowdin R, Wang Y, Wu J, Azen SP & Varma R (2008): Impact of visual field loss on health-related quality of life in glaucoma: the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Ophthalmology 115: 941948.
  • McMillan TA, Stewart WC & Hunt HH (1992): Association of reliability with reproducibility of the glaucomatous visual field. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 70: 665670.
  • Nakagami T, Yamazaki Y & Hayamizu F (2006): Prognostic factors for progression of visual field damage in patients with normal-tension glaucoma. Jpn J Ophthalmol 50: 3843.
  • Noureddin BN, Poinoosawmy D, Fietzke FW & Hitchings RA (1991): Regression analysis of visual field progression in low tension glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 75: 493495.
  • Nouri Mahdavi K, Brigatti L, Weitzman M & Caprioli J (1997): Comparison of methods to detect visual field progression in glaucoma. Ophthalmology 104: 12281236.
  • Nouri Mahdavi K, Hoffman D, Coleman AL, Liu G, Li G, Gaasterland D & Caprioli J (2004): Predictive factors for glaucomatous visual field progression in the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study. Ophthalmology 111: 16271635.
  • Nouri Mahdavi K, Hoffman D, Ralli M & Caprioli J (2007): Comparison of methods to predict visual field progression in glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 125: 11761181.
  • Oliver JE, Hattenhauer MG, Herman D, Hodge DO, Kennedy R, Fang Yen M & Johnson DH (2002): Blindness and glaucoma: a comparison of patients progressing to blindness from glaucoma with patients maintaining vision. Am J Ophthalmol 133: 764772.
  • Reitsma JB, Rutjes AW, Khan KS, Coomarasamy A & Bossuyt PM (2009): A review of solutions for diagnostic accuracy studies with an imperfect or missing reference standard. J Clin Epidemiol 62: 797806.
  • Rossetti L, Goni F, Denis P, Bengtsson B, Martinez A & Heijl A (2010): Focusing on glaucoma progression and the clinical importance of progression rate measurement: a review. Eye (Lond) 24(Suppl 1): S1S7.
  • Schiefer U, Pascual JP, Edmunds B et al. (2009): Comparison of the new perimetric GATE strategy with conventional full-threshold and SITA standard strategies. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 50: 488494.
  • Schulzer M (1994): Errors in the diagnosis of visual field progression in normal-tension glaucoma. Ophthalmology 101: 15891594.
  • Sekhar GC, Naduvilath TJ, Lakkai M, Jayakumar AJ, Pandi GT, Mandal AK & Honavar SG (2000): Sensitivity of Swedish interactive threshold algorithm compared with standard full threshold algorithm in Humphrey visual field testing. Ophthalmology 107: 13031308.
  • Spry PG, Henson DB, Sparrow JM & North RV (2000): Quantitative comparison of static perimetric strategies in early glaucoma: test-retest variability. J Glaucoma 9: 247253.
  • Spry PG, Johnson CA, McKendrick AM & Turpin A (2001): Variability components of standard automated perimetry and frequency-doubling technology perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 42: 14041410.
  • Spry PG, Johnson CA, McKendrick AM & Turpin A (2003): Measurement error of visual field tests in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 87: 107112.
  • Spry PG, Sparrow JM, Diamond JP & Harris HS (2005): Risk factors for progressive visual field loss in primary open angle glaucoma. Eye (Lond) 19: 643651.
  • Stewart WC, Chorak RP, Hunt HH & Sethuraman G (1993): Factors associated with visual loss in patients with advanced glaucomatous changes in the optic nerve head. Am J Ophthalmol 116: 176181.
  • Stewart WC, Kolker AE, Sharpe ED, Day DG, Holmes KT, Leech JN, Johnson M & Cantrell JB (2000): Factors associated with long-term progression or stability in primary open-angle glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 130: 274279.
  • Streiner DL & Norman GR (2008a): Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press 254.
  • Streiner DL & Norman GR (2008b): Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press 257258.
  • Tattersall CL, Vernon SA & Menon GJ (2007): Mean deviation fluctuation in eyes with stable Humphrey 24-2 visual fields. Eye (Lond) 21: 362366.
  • The AGIS Investigators (1994): Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study. 2. Visual field test scoring and reliability. Ophthalmology 101: 14451455.
  • The AGIS Investigators (2000): The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 7. The relationship between control of intraocular pressure and visual field deterioration. Am J Ophthalmol 130: 429440.
  • The AGIS Investigators (2004): The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 14. Distinguishing progression of glaucoma from visual field fluctuations. Ophthalmology 111: 21092116.
  • Vesti E, Johnson CA & Chauhan BC (2003): Comparison of different methods for detecting glaucomatous visual field progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44: 38733879.
  • Viswanathan AC, McNaught AI, Poinoosawmy D, Fontana L, Crabb DP, Fitzke FW & Hitchings RA (1999): Severity and stability of glaucoma: patient perception compared with objective measurement. Arch Ophthalmol 117: 450454.
  • Wall M, Woodward KR, Doyle CK & Artes PH (2009): Repeatability of automated perimetry: a comparison between standard automated perimetry with stimulus size III and V, matrix, and motion perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 50: 974979.
  • Werner EB, Bishop KI, Koelle J et al. (1988): A comparison of experienced clinical observers and statistical tests in detection of progressive visual field loss in glaucoma using automated perimetry. Arch Ophthalmol 106: 619623.
  • Wyatt HJ, Dul MW & Swanson WH (2007): Variability of visual field measurements is correlated with the gradient of visual sensitivity. Vision Res 47: 925936.
  • Yamazaki Y & Drance SM (1997): The relationship between progression of visual field defects and retrobulbar circulation in patients with glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 124: 287295.
  • Yamazaki Y, Hayamizu F & Tanaka C (2000): Effects of long-term methylcobalamin treatment on the progression of visual field defects in normal-tension glaucoma. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp 61: 443451.
  • Zahari M, Mukesh BN, Rait JL, Taylor HR & McCarty CA (2006): Progression of visual field loss in open angle glaucoma in the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 34: 2026.
  • Zeimer RC, Wilensky JT, Gieser DK & Viana MA (1991): Association between intraocular pressure peaks and progression of visual field loss. Ophthalmology 98: 6469.