advertisement
Abstract #15399 Published in IGR 1-3
Methodological variations in estimating apparent progressive visual field loss in clinical trials of glaucoma treatment
Katz J; Congdon N; Friedman DSArchives of Ophthalmology 1999; 117: 1137-1142
OBJECTIVES: To compare methods to estimate the incidence of visual field progression used by three large randomized trials of glaucoma treatment by applying these methods to a common data set of annually obtained visual field measurements of patients with glaucoma followed up for an average of six years. METHODS: The methods used by the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS), the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study (CIGTS), and the Early Manifest Glaucoma Treatment study (EMGT) were applied to 67 eyes of 56 patients with glaucoma enrolled in a ten-year natural history study of glaucoma using Program 30-2 of the Humphrey Field Analyzer (Humphrey Instruments, San Leandro, CA). The incidence of apparent visual field progression was estimated for each method. Extent of agreement between the methods was calculated, and time to apparent progression was compared. RESULTS: The proportion of patients progressing was 11%, 22%, and 23% with AGIS, CIGTS, and EMGT methods, respectively. Clinical assessment identified 23% of patients who progressed, but only half these were also identified by CIGTS or EMGT methods. The CIGTS and the EMGT had comparable incidence rates, but only half those identified by one method were also identified by the other. CONCLUSIONS: The EMGT and CIGTS methods produced rates of apparent progression that were twice those of the AGIS method. Although EMGT, CIGTS, and clinical assessment rates were comparable, they did not identify the same patients as having had field progression.
Dr. J. Katz, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205-2103; USA
Classification:
6.6.2 Automated (Part of: 6 Clinical examination methods > 6.6 Visual field examination and other visual function tests)
