Screening tests for detecting open-angle glaucoma: systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE: To assess the comparative accuracy of potential screening tests for open angle glaucoma (OAG).

METHODS: Medline, Embase, Biosis (to November 2005), Science Citation Index (to December 2005), and The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2005) were searched. Studies assessing candidate screening tests for detecting OAG in persons older than 40 years that reported true and false positives and negatives were included. Meta-analysis was undertaken using the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model.

RESULTS: Forty studies enrolling over 48,000 people reported nine tests. Most tests were reported by only a few studies. Frequency-doubling technology (FDT; C-20-1) was significantly more sensitive than ophthalmoscopy (30, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0-62) and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT; 45, 95% CrI 17-68), whereas threshold standard automated perimetry (SAP) and Heidelberg Retinal Tomograph (HRT II) were both more sensitive than GAT (41, 95% CrI 14-64 and 39, 95% CrI 3-64, respectively). GAT was more specific than both FDT C-20-5 (19, 95% CrI 0-53) and threshold SAP (14, 95% CrI 1-37). Judging performance by diagnostic odds ratio, FDT, oculokinetic perimetry, and HRT II are promising tests. Ophthalmoscopy, SAP, retinal photography, and GAT had relatively poor performance as single tests. These findings are based on heterogeneous data of limited quality and as such are associated with considerable uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS: No test or group of tests was clearly superior for glaucoma screening. Further research is needed to evaluate the comparative accuracy of the most promising tests.

Test-retest variability in structural and functional parameters of glaucoma damage in the glaucoma imaging longitudinal study.

PURPOSE:

To determine the test-retest variability in perimetric, optic disc, and macular thickness parameters in a cohort of treated patients with established glaucoma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS:

In this cohort study, the authors analyzed the imaging studies and visual field tests at the baseline and 6-month visits of 162 eyes of 162 participant in the Glaucoma Imaging Longitudinal Study (GILS). They assessed the difference, expressed as the standard error of measurement, of Humphrey field analyzer II (HFA) Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm fast, Heidelberg retinal tomograph (HRT) II, and retinal thickness analyzer (RTA) parameters between the two visits and assumed that this difference was due to measurement variability, not pathologic change. A statistically significant change was defined as twice the standard error of measurement.

RESULTS:

In this cohort of treated glaucoma patients, it was found that statistically significant changes were 3.2 dB for mean deviation (MD), 2.2 for pattern standard deviation (PSD), 0.12 for cup shape measure, 0.26 mm for rim area, and 32.8 microm and 31.8 microm for superior and inferior macular thickness, respectively. On the basis of these values, it was estimated that the number of potential progression events detectable in this cohort by the parameters of MD, PSD, cup shape measure, rim area, superior macular thickness, and inferior macular thickness was 7.5, 6.0, 2.3, 5.7, 3.1, and 3.4, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS:

The variability of the measurements of MD, PSD, and rim area, relative to the range of possible values, is less than the variability of cup shape measure or macular thickness measurements. Therefore, the former measurements may be more useful global measurements for assessing progressive glaucoma damage.