COMPARISON OF ANALYTIC ALGORITHMS FOR DETECTING GLAUCOMATOUS VISUAL-FIELD LOSS
COMPARISON OF ANALYTIC ALGORITHMS FOR DETECTING GLAUCOMATOUS VISUAL-FIELD LOSS
复制标题
DOI：
10.1001/archopht.1991.01080120068028
复制
发表时间：
1991-12-01
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
ANDERSON, DR
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
KATZ, J;SOMMER, A;ANDERSON, DR
对106例青光眼患者和249例正常人各1只眼的自动阈值视野透过率测定(Humphrey视野分析仪的C-30-2试验)的敏感度和特异度进行了比较。算法包括商业上可用的全球指数和跨经线差异(STATPAC 1和STATPAC 2)，以及为自然病史研究和临床试验独立开发的跨经线和聚类分析。除了那些只使用弥漫性损失作为异常指标的算法外，大多数算法的灵敏度都很高。所有算法的特异度都很高，可以接受。未能达到制造商的可靠性标准的受试者特异性大大降低，但敏感性也受到影响。基于视网膜敏感度局部性降低的任何另一种定义的算法都表现得同样好，这表明这些方法中的任何一种在搜索该数据库所代表的青光眼视力损失时都是有用的。可用性、熟悉性和方便性可能支配着在特定环境中使用的任何一种分析方法的选择。
The sensitivity and specificity of alternate analytic strategies for recognizing glaucomatous visual field loss from automated threshold perlmetry (C-30-2 test of the Humphrey Field Analyzer) were compared among one eye each of 106 patients with glaucoma and 249 normal subjects. Algorithms included commercially available global indexes and cross-meridional differences (Statpac 1 and Statpac 2), as well as cross-meridional and cluster analyses that were developed independently for natural history studies and clinical trials. The sensitivity of most algorithms was high, except for those that used only diffuse loss as an indicator of abnormality. Specificity was acceptably high for all algorithms. Subjects who failed to meet the manufacturer's standard for reliability had much reduced specificity, but sensitivity was also affected. Algorithms that were based on any of the alternate definitions of localized reduction in retinal sensitivity performed equally well, which suggests that any of these approaches is useful in searching for glaucomatous visual loss as typified by this database. Availability, famillarity, and convenience may govern the selection of any one analytic approach for use in a particular setting.