A New Approach to Measure Visual Field Progression in Glaucoma Patients Using Variational Bayes Linear Regression

2014 ◽  
Vol 55 (12) ◽  
pp. 8386-8392 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Murata ◽  
M. Araie ◽  
R. Asaoka
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Linear Regression ◽  
Variational Bayes ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Visual Field Progression

Comparing the usefulness of a new algorithm to measure visual field using the variational Bayes linear regression in glaucoma patients, in comparison to the Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm

2021 ◽  
pp. bjophthalmol-2020-318304
Author(s):  
Hiroshi Murata ◽  
Ryo Asaoka ◽  
Yuri Fujino ◽  
Masato Matsuura ◽  
Kazunori Hirasawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Linear Regression ◽  
Open Angle Glaucoma ◽  
Variational Bayes ◽  
Mean Deviation ◽  
Test Duration ◽  
Field Analyser ◽  
Measurement Duration ◽  
Measurement Algorithm ◽  
Thresholding Algorithm

Background/aimsWe previously reported that the visual field (VF) prediction model using the variational Bayes linear regression (VBLR) is useful for accurately predicting VF progression in glaucoma (Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014, 2018). We constructed a VF measurement algorithm using VBLR, and the purpose of this study was to investigate its usefulness.Method122 eyes of 73 patients with open-angle glaucoma were included in the current study. VF measurement was performed using the currently proposed VBLR programme with AP-7700 perimetry (KOWA). VF measurements were also conducted using the Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm (SITA) standard programme with Humphrey field analyser. VF measurements were performed using the 24–2 test grid. Visual sensitivities, test–retest reproducibility and measurement duration were compared between the two algorithms.ResultMean mean deviation (MD) values with SITA standard were −7.9 and −8.7 dB (first and second measurements), whereas those with VBLR-VF were −8.2 and −8.0 dB, respectively. There were no significant differences across these values. The correlation coefficient of MD values between the 2 algorithms was 0.97 or 0.98. Test–retest reproducibility did not differ between the two algorithms. Mean measurement duration with SITA standard was 6 min and 02 s or 6 min and 00 s (first or second measurement), whereas a significantly shorter duration was associated with VBLR-VF (5 min and 23 s or 5 min and 30 s).ConclusionVBLR-VF reduced test duration while maintaining the same accuracy as the SITA-standard.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document