Technology and the Glaucoma Suspect.

Abstract

PURPOSE To determine and compare the diagnostic performance of spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT), stereoscopic disc photographs, and automated perimetry as assessed by a group of glaucoma specialists in differentiating individuals with early glaucoma from suspects. METHODS Forty-six eyes (46 patients) with suspicious optic nerves had previously undergone SD-OCT scans, 24-2 visual fields (VFs), and optic disc photographs. The average VF mean deviation was -1.97 ± 2.09 (SD) dB. Four glaucoma specialists examined the 138 individual diagnostic tests and classified the patient as likely glaucomatous or nonglaucomatous based on the results of a single test. The diagnostic performances of each of the three tests were compared to a previously determined reference standard, based on the consensus of a separate panel of four glaucoma specialists who examined all three tests together. RESULTS Among the four specialists, the interobserver agreement across the three diagnostic tests was poor for VF and photos, with kappa (κ) values of 0.13 and 0.16, respectively, and moderate for OCT, with κ value of 0.40. Using panel consensus as reference standard, OCT had the highest discriminative ability, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.99 (95% 0.96-1.0) compared to photograph AUC 0.85 (95% 0.73-0.96) and VF AUC 0.86 (95% 0.76-0.96), suggestive of closer performance to that of a group of glaucoma specialists. CONCLUSIONS Compared to VF and disc photography, SD-OCT, when used alone, had better internal agreement as well as better agreement with the consensus of clinicians using all available data. Future studies should evaluate best practices for SD-OCT interpretation.

DOI: 10.1167/iovs.15-18931

2 Figures and Tables

Cite this paper

@article{Blumberg2016TechnologyAT, title={Technology and the Glaucoma Suspect.}, author={Dana M. Blumberg and Carlos Gustavo Vasconcelos de Moraes and Jeffrey M. Liebmann and Reena A Garg and Cynthia Chen and Alex B Theventhiran and Donald C. Hood}, journal={Investigative ophthalmology & visual science}, year={2016}, volume={57 9}, pages={OCT80-5} }