Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of automated imaging for glaucoma. DESIGN: Prospective, direct comparison study. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with suspected glaucoma or ocular hypertension referred to hospital eye services in the United Kingdom. METHODS: We evaluated 4 automated imaging test algorithms: the Heidelberg Retinal Tomography (HRT; Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany) glaucoma probability score (GPS), the HRT Moorfields regression analysis (MRA), scanning laser polarimetry (GDx enhanced corneal compensation; Glaucoma Diagnostics (GDx), Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA) nerve fiber indicator (NFI), and Spectralis optical coherence tomography (OCT; Heidelberg Engineering) retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) classification. We defined abnormal tests as an automated classification of outside normal limits for HRT and OCT or NFI ≥ 56 (GDx). We conducted a sensitivity analysis, using borderline abnormal image classifications. The reference standard was clinical diagnosis by a masked glaucoma expert including standardized clinical assessment and automated perimetry. We analyzed 1 eye per patient (the one with more advanced disease). We also evaluated the performance according to severity and using a combination of 2 technologies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity and specificity, likelihood ratios, diagnostic, odds ratio, and proportion of indeterminate tests. RESULTS: We recruited 955 participants, and 943 were included in the analysis. The average age was 60.5 years (standard deviation, 13.8 years); 51.1% were women. Glaucoma was diagnosed in at least 1 eye in 16.8%; 32% of participants had no glaucoma-related findings. The HRT MRA had the highest sensitivity (87.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 80.2%-92.1%), but lowest specificity (63.9%; 95% CI, 60.2%-67.4%); GDx had the lowest sensitivity (35.1%; 95% CI, 27.0%-43.8%), but the highest specificity (97.2%; 95% CI, 95.6%-98.3%). The HRT GPS sensitivity was 81.5% (95% CI, 73.9%-87.6%), and specificity was 67.7% (95% CI, 64.2%-71.2%); OCT sensitivity was 76.9% (95% CI, 69.2%-83.4%), and specificity was 78.5% (95% CI, 75.4%-81.4%). Including only eyes with severe glaucoma, sensitivity increased: HRT MRA, HRT GPS, and OCT would miss 5% of eyes, and GDx would miss 21% of eyes. A combination of 2 different tests did not improve the accuracy substantially. CONCLUSIONS: Automated imaging technologies can aid clinicians in diagnosing glaucoma, but may not replace current strategies because they can miss some cases of severe glaucoma.

Original publication

DOI

10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.01.041

Type

Journal article

Journal

Ophthalmology

Publication Date

05/2016

Volume

123

Pages

930 - 938

Keywords

Aged, Algorithms, False Positive Reactions, Female, Glaucoma, Humans, Intraocular Pressure, Likelihood Functions, Male, Middle Aged, Multimodal Imaging, Nerve Fibers, Ocular Hypertension, Odds Ratio, Ophthalmoscopy, Optic Disk, Predictive Value of Tests, Probability, Prospective Studies, Retinal Ganglion Cells, Scanning Laser Polarimetry, Sensitivity and Specificity, Tomography, Optical Coherence