Advanced

Optic disc classification by the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph and by physicians with varying experience of glaucoma.

Andersson, Sabina LU ; Heijl, Anders LU and Bengtsson, Boel LU (2011) In Eye (London, England) 25. p.1401-1407
Abstract
PurposeTo compare the diagnostic accuracy of the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph's (HRT) Moorfields regression analysis (MRA) and glaucoma probability score (GPS) with that of subjective grading of optic disc photographs performed by ophthalmologists with varying experience of glaucoma and by ophthalmology residents.MethodsDigitized disc photographs and HRT images from 97 glaucoma patients with visual field defects and 138 healthy individuals were classified as either within normal limits (WNL), borderline (BL), or outside normal limits (ONL). Sensitivity and specificity were compared for MRA, GPS, and the physicians. Analyses were also made according to disc size and for advanced visual field loss.ResultsForty-five physicians participated.... (More)
PurposeTo compare the diagnostic accuracy of the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph's (HRT) Moorfields regression analysis (MRA) and glaucoma probability score (GPS) with that of subjective grading of optic disc photographs performed by ophthalmologists with varying experience of glaucoma and by ophthalmology residents.MethodsDigitized disc photographs and HRT images from 97 glaucoma patients with visual field defects and 138 healthy individuals were classified as either within normal limits (WNL), borderline (BL), or outside normal limits (ONL). Sensitivity and specificity were compared for MRA, GPS, and the physicians. Analyses were also made according to disc size and for advanced visual field loss.ResultsForty-five physicians participated. When BL results were regarded as normal, sensitivity was significantly higher (P<5%) for both MRA and GPS compared with the average physician, 87%, 79%, and 62%, respectively. Specificity ranged from 86% for MRA to 97% for general ophthalmologists, but the differences were not significant. In eyes with small discs, sensitivity was 75% for MRA, 60% for the average doctor, and 25% for GPS; in eyes with large discs, sensitivity was 100% for both GPS and MRA, but only 68% for physicians.ConclusionOur results suggest that sensitivity of MRA is superior to that of the average physician, but not that of glaucoma experts. MRA correctly classified all eyes with advanced glaucoma and showed the best sensitivity in eyes with small optic discs. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
Eye (London, England)
volume
25
pages
1401 - 1407
external identifiers
  • WOS:000297209400002
  • PMID:21836629
  • Scopus:80955123629
ISSN
1476-5454
DOI
10.1038/eye.2011.172
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
15806597-8f1a-4bec-8ff0-728a21e14aa2 (old id 2151140)
alternative location
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21836629?dopt=Abstract
date added to LUP
2011-09-04 21:59:07
date last changed
2017-01-22 04:17:48
@article{15806597-8f1a-4bec-8ff0-728a21e14aa2,
  abstract     = {PurposeTo compare the diagnostic accuracy of the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph's (HRT) Moorfields regression analysis (MRA) and glaucoma probability score (GPS) with that of subjective grading of optic disc photographs performed by ophthalmologists with varying experience of glaucoma and by ophthalmology residents.MethodsDigitized disc photographs and HRT images from 97 glaucoma patients with visual field defects and 138 healthy individuals were classified as either within normal limits (WNL), borderline (BL), or outside normal limits (ONL). Sensitivity and specificity were compared for MRA, GPS, and the physicians. Analyses were also made according to disc size and for advanced visual field loss.ResultsForty-five physicians participated. When BL results were regarded as normal, sensitivity was significantly higher (P&lt;5%) for both MRA and GPS compared with the average physician, 87%, 79%, and 62%, respectively. Specificity ranged from 86% for MRA to 97% for general ophthalmologists, but the differences were not significant. In eyes with small discs, sensitivity was 75% for MRA, 60% for the average doctor, and 25% for GPS; in eyes with large discs, sensitivity was 100% for both GPS and MRA, but only 68% for physicians.ConclusionOur results suggest that sensitivity of MRA is superior to that of the average physician, but not that of glaucoma experts. MRA correctly classified all eyes with advanced glaucoma and showed the best sensitivity in eyes with small optic discs.},
  author       = {Andersson, Sabina and Heijl, Anders and Bengtsson, Boel},
  issn         = {1476-5454},
  language     = {eng},
  pages        = {1401--1407},
  series       = {Eye (London, England)},
  title        = {Optic disc classification by the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph and by physicians with varying experience of glaucoma.},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/eye.2011.172},
  volume       = {25},
  year         = {2011},
}