Cargando…

Detection of Functional Change Using Cluster Trend Analysis in Glaucoma

PURPOSE: Global analyses using mean deviation (MD) assess visual field progression, but can miss localized changes. Pointwise analyses are more sensitive to localized progression, but more variable so require confirmation. This study assessed whether cluster trend analysis, averaging information acr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gardiner, Stuart K., Mansberger, Steven L., Demirel, Shaban
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5516565/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28715580
http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/iovs.17-21562
_version_ 1783251183103639552
author Gardiner, Stuart K.
Mansberger, Steven L.
Demirel, Shaban
author_facet Gardiner, Stuart K.
Mansberger, Steven L.
Demirel, Shaban
author_sort Gardiner, Stuart K.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Global analyses using mean deviation (MD) assess visual field progression, but can miss localized changes. Pointwise analyses are more sensitive to localized progression, but more variable so require confirmation. This study assessed whether cluster trend analysis, averaging information across subsets of locations, could improve progression detection. METHODS: A total of 133 test–retest eyes were tested 7 to 10 times. Rates of change and P values were calculated for possible re-orderings of these series to generate global analysis (“MD worsening faster than x dB/y with P < y”), pointwise and cluster analyses (“n locations [or clusters] worsening faster than x dB/y with P < y”) with specificity exactly 95%. These criteria were applied to 505 eyes tested over a mean of 10.5 years, to find how soon each detected “deterioration,” and compared using survival models. This was repeated including two subsequent visual fields to determine whether “deterioration” was confirmed. RESULTS: The best global criterion detected deterioration in 25% of eyes in 5.0 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.7–5.3 years), compared with 4.8 years (95% CI, 4.2–5.1) for the best cluster analysis criterion, and 4.1 years (95% CI, 4.0–4.5) for the best pointwise criterion. However, for pointwise analysis, only 38% of these changes were confirmed, compared with 61% for clusters and 76% for MD. The time until 25% of eyes showed subsequently confirmed deterioration was 6.3 years (95% CI, 6.0–7.2) for global, 6.3 years (95% CI, 6.0–7.0) for pointwise, and 6.0 years (95% CI, 5.3–6.6) for cluster analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Although the specificity is still suboptimal, cluster trend analysis detects subsequently confirmed deterioration sooner than either global or pointwise analyses.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5516565
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55165652017-07-20 Detection of Functional Change Using Cluster Trend Analysis in Glaucoma Gardiner, Stuart K. Mansberger, Steven L. Demirel, Shaban Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Special Issue PURPOSE: Global analyses using mean deviation (MD) assess visual field progression, but can miss localized changes. Pointwise analyses are more sensitive to localized progression, but more variable so require confirmation. This study assessed whether cluster trend analysis, averaging information across subsets of locations, could improve progression detection. METHODS: A total of 133 test–retest eyes were tested 7 to 10 times. Rates of change and P values were calculated for possible re-orderings of these series to generate global analysis (“MD worsening faster than x dB/y with P < y”), pointwise and cluster analyses (“n locations [or clusters] worsening faster than x dB/y with P < y”) with specificity exactly 95%. These criteria were applied to 505 eyes tested over a mean of 10.5 years, to find how soon each detected “deterioration,” and compared using survival models. This was repeated including two subsequent visual fields to determine whether “deterioration” was confirmed. RESULTS: The best global criterion detected deterioration in 25% of eyes in 5.0 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.7–5.3 years), compared with 4.8 years (95% CI, 4.2–5.1) for the best cluster analysis criterion, and 4.1 years (95% CI, 4.0–4.5) for the best pointwise criterion. However, for pointwise analysis, only 38% of these changes were confirmed, compared with 61% for clusters and 76% for MD. The time until 25% of eyes showed subsequently confirmed deterioration was 6.3 years (95% CI, 6.0–7.2) for global, 6.3 years (95% CI, 6.0–7.0) for pointwise, and 6.0 years (95% CI, 5.3–6.6) for cluster analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Although the specificity is still suboptimal, cluster trend analysis detects subsequently confirmed deterioration sooner than either global or pointwise analyses. The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology 2017-05 /pmc/articles/PMC5516565/ /pubmed/28715580 http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/iovs.17-21562 Text en Copyright 2017 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
spellingShingle Special Issue
Gardiner, Stuart K.
Mansberger, Steven L.
Demirel, Shaban
Detection of Functional Change Using Cluster Trend Analysis in Glaucoma
title Detection of Functional Change Using Cluster Trend Analysis in Glaucoma
title_full Detection of Functional Change Using Cluster Trend Analysis in Glaucoma
title_fullStr Detection of Functional Change Using Cluster Trend Analysis in Glaucoma
title_full_unstemmed Detection of Functional Change Using Cluster Trend Analysis in Glaucoma
title_short Detection of Functional Change Using Cluster Trend Analysis in Glaucoma
title_sort detection of functional change using cluster trend analysis in glaucoma
topic Special Issue
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5516565/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28715580
http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/iovs.17-21562
work_keys_str_mv AT gardinerstuartk detectionoffunctionalchangeusingclustertrendanalysisinglaucoma
AT mansbergerstevenl detectionoffunctionalchangeusingclustertrendanalysisinglaucoma
AT demirelshaban detectionoffunctionalchangeusingclustertrendanalysisinglaucoma