Información del artículo
Resumen
Objetivo
Ofrecer una serie de recomendaciones generales que sirvan de orientación en la evaluación y el manejo de la progresión glaucomatosa en la práctica clínica diaria a partir de la evidencia clínica de calidad existente.
MétodosTras la definición de los objetivos y del alcance de la guía se constituyó el grupo de trabajo que formuló las preguntas clínicas estructuradas siguiendo el formato PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes). Una vez evaluada toda la evidencia clínica existente con las herramientas AMSTAR2 (Assessment of Multiple systematic Rewiews) y Risk of bias de Cochrane de forma independiente por al menos dos revisores, se pasó a la formulación de recomendaciones siguiendo la metodología del Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN).
ResultadosSe presentan recomendaciones con sus correspondientes niveles de evidencia que pueden ser de utilidad para la detección y el seguimiento de la progresión glaucomatosa con los distintos métodos disponibles y para el tratamiento de los pacientes.
ConclusionesA pesar de que para muchas de las preguntas el nivel de evidencia científica disponible no es muy alto, esta guía de práctica clínica ofrece una revisión actualizada de los diferentes aspectos existentes relacionados con la evaluación y el manejo de la progresión glaucomatosa.
Palabras clave:
Glaucoma
Progresión
OCT
Campimetría
Inteligencia artificial
Abstract
Objective
To provide general recommendations that serve as a guide for the evaluation and management of glaucomatous progression in daily clinical practice based on the existing quality of clinical evidence.
MethodsAfter defining the objectives and scope of the guide, the working group was formed and structured clinical questions were formulated following the PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes) format. Once all the existing clinical evidence had been independently evaluated with the AMSTAR2 (Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews) and Cochrane «Risk of bias» tools by at least two reviewers, recommendations were formulated following the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline network (SIGN) methodology.
ResultsRecommendations with their corresponding levels of evidence that may be useful in the interpretation and decision-making related to the different methods for the detection of glaucomatous progression are presented.
ConclusionsDespite the fact that for many of the questions the level of scientific evidence available is not very high, this clinical practice guideline offers an updated review of the different existing aspects related to the evaluation and management of glaucomatous progression.
Keywords:
Glaucoma
Progression
OCT
Campimetry
Artificial intelligence
Artículo
Opciones para acceder a los textos completos de la publicación Archivos de la Sociedad Española de Oftalmología
Suscriptor
Comprar
Contactar
Teléfono para suscripciones e incidencias
De lunes a viernes de 9h a 18h (GMT+1) excepto los meses de julio y agosto que será de 9 a 15h
Llamadas desde España
932 415 960
Llamadas desde fuera de España
+34 932 415 960
E-mail
Bibliografía
[1]
Y.-C. Tham, X. Li, T.Y. Wong, H.A. Quigley, T. Aung, C.-Y. Cheng.
Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ophthalmology., 121 (2014), pp. 2081-2090
[2]
Guidelines for glaucoma cabe en la línea superior no tiene sentido separar la palabra con tanto espacio disponible en la línea. Disponible en: https://bjo.bmj.com/content/bjophthalmol/105/Suppl_1/1.full.pdf.
[3]
L.J. Saunders, F.A. Medeiros, R.N. Weinreb, L.M. Zangwill.
What rates of glaucoma progression are clinically significant?.
Expert Rev Ophthalmol., 11 (2016), pp. 227-234
[4]
P.G. Shekelle, E. Ortiz, S. Rhodes, S.C. Morton, M.P. Eccles, J.M. Grimshaw, et al.
Validity of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality clinical practice guidelines: How quickly do guidelines become outdated?.
JAMA., 286 (2001), pp. 1461-1467
[5]
Ministerio de Sanidad y Política Social.
Actualización de guías de práctica clínica en el Sistema Nacional de Salud: Manual metodológico.
Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, (2009),
[6]
M.C. Brouwers, M.E. Kho, G.P. Browman, J.S. Burgers, F. Cluzeau, G. Feder, et al.
AGREEII: Advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care.
CMAJ., 182 (2010), pp. E839-E842
[7]
B.J. Shea, J.M. Grimshaw, G.A. Wells, M. Boers, N. Andersson, C. Hamel, et al.
Development of AMSTAR: A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.
BMC Med Res Methodol., 7 (2007), pp. 10
[8]
J.P.T. Higgins, D.G. Altman, P.C. Gøtzsche, P. Jüni, D. Moher, A.D. Oxman, The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials, et al.
BMJ., 343 (2011), pp. d5928
[9]
Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN).
A Guideline Developer's Handbook.
SIGN, (2019),
[10]
B.E. Prum, L.F. Rosenberg, S.J. Gedde, S.L. Mansberger, J.D. Stein, S.E. Moroi, et al.
Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma Preferred Practice Pattern® Guidelines.
Ophthalmology., 123 (2016), pp. P41-P111
[11]
Canadian Ophthalmological Society Glaucoma Clinical Practice Guideline Expert Committee, Canadian Ophthalmological Society.
Canadian Ophthalmological Society evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the management of glaucoma in the adult eye.
Can J Ophthalmol., 44 (2009), pp. S7-S93
[12]
S.K. Gardiner, C.A. Johnson, P.G.D. Spry.
Normal age-related sensitivity loss for a variety of visual functions throughout the visual field.
Optom Vis Sci., 83 (2006), pp. 438-443
[13]
A. Heijl, G. Lindgren, J. Olsson.
Perimetric threshold variability and age.
Arch Ophthalmol., 106 (1988), pp. 450-452
[14]
M.C. Leske, A. Heijl, L. Hyman, B. Bengtsson, L. Dong, Z. Yang, et al.
Predictors of long-term progression in the early manifest glaucoma trial.
Ophthalmology., 114 (2007), pp. 1965-1972
[15]
P.R. Lichter, D.C. Musch, B.W. Gillespie, K.E. Guire, N.K. Janz, P.A. Wren, et al.
Interim clinical outcomes in the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study comparing initial treatment randomized to medications or surgery.
Ophthalmology., 108 (2001), pp. 1943-1953
[16]
C.G. De Moraes, J.M. Liebmann, D.S. Greenfield, S.K. Gardiner, R. Ritch, T. Krupin, et al.
Risk factors for visual field progression in the low-pressure glaucoma treatment study.
Am J Ophthalmol., 154 (2012), pp. 702-711
[17]
Park H-YL, K.E. Hong, C.K. Park.
Impact of age and myopia on the rate of visual field progression in glaucoma patients.
Medicine (Baltimore)., 95 (2016), pp. e3500
[18]
A. Heijl, M.C. Leske, B. Bengtsson, B. Bengtsson, M. Hussein, Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial Group.
Measuring visual field progression in the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial.
Acta Ophthalmol Scand., 81 (2003), pp. 286-293
[19]
F. Arnalich-Montiel, P. Casas-Llera, F.J. Muñoz-Negrete, G. Rebolleda.
Performance of glaucoma progression analysis software in a glaucoma population.
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol., 247 (2009), pp. 391-397
[20]
A. Heijl, B. Bengtsson, B.C. Chauhan, M.F. Lieberman, I. Cunliffe, L. Hyman, et al.
A comparison of visual field progression criteria of 3 major glaucoma trials in early manifest glaucoma trial patients.
Ophthalmology., 115 (2008), pp. 1557-1565
[21]
F. Ederer, D.E. Gaasterland, E.K. Sullivan, AGIS Investigators.
The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 1. Study design and methods and baseline characteristics of study patients.
Control Clin Trials., 15 (1994), pp. 299-325
[22]
D.C. Musch, P.R. Lichter, K.E. Guire, C.L. Standardi, The Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study: Study design, methods, and baseline characteristics of enrolled patients.
Ophthalmology., 106 (1999), pp. 653-662
[23]
Comparison of glaucomatous progression between untreated patients with normal-tension glaucoma and patients with therapeutically reduced intraocular pressures. Collaborative Normal-Tension Glaucoma Study Group.
Am J Ophthalmol., 126 (1998), pp. 487-497
[24]
M.C. Leske, A. Heijl, L. Hyman, B. Bengtsson.
Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial: Design and baseline data.
Ophthalmology., 106 (1999), pp. 2144-2153
[25]
T. Krupin, J.M. Liebmann, D.S. Greenfield, L.F. Rosenberg, R. Ritch, J.W. Yang.
The Low-pressure Glaucoma Treatment Study (LoGTS): Study design and baseline characteristics of enrolled patients.
Ophthalmology., 112 (2005), pp. 376-385
[26]
K. Nouri-Mahdavi, R. Zarei, J. Caprioli.
Influence of visual field testing frequency on detection of glaucoma progression with trend analyses.
Arch Ophthalmol., 129 (2011), pp. 1521-1527
[27]
P.H. Artes, B.C. Chauhan, J.L. Keltner, K.E. Cello, C.A. Johnson, D.R. Anderson, et al.
Longitudinal and cross-sectional analyses of visual field progression in participants of the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study.
Arch Ophthalmol., 128 (2010), pp. 1528-1532
[28]
S. Aoki, H. Murata, Y. Fujino, M. Matsuura, A. Miki, M. Tanito, et al.
Investigating the usefulness of a cluster-based trend analysis to detect visual field progression in patients with open-angle glaucoma.
Br J Ophthalmol., 101 (2017), pp. 1658-1665
[29]
P.H. Artes, A. Iwase, Y. Ohno, Y. Kitazawa, B.C. Chauhan.
Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from Full Threshold, SITA Standard, and SITA Fast Strategies.
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci., 43 (2002), pp. 2654-2659
[30]
Z. Wu, F.A. Medeiros, R.N. Weinreb, C.A. Girkin, L.M. Zangwill.
Comparing 10-2 and 24-2 visual fields for detecting progressive central visual loss in glaucoma eyes with early central abnormalities.
Ophthalmol Glaucoma., 2 (2019), pp. 95-102
[31]
R.H. Tomairek, S.A. Aboud, M. Hassan, A.H. Mohamed.
Studying the role of 10-2 visual field test in different stages of glaucoma.
Eur J Ophthalmol., 30 (2020), pp. 706-713
[32]
S.C. Park, Y. Kung, D. Su, J.L. Simonson, R.L. Furlanetto, J.M. Liebmann, et al.
Parafoveal scotoma progression in glaucoma.
Ophthalmology., 120 (2013), pp. 1546-1550
[33]
M.E. West, G.P. Sharpe, D.M. Hutchison, P.E. Rafuse, L.M. Shuba, M.T. Nicolela, et al.
Value of 10-2 visual field testing in glaucoma patients with early 24-2 visual field loss.
Ophthalmology., 128 (2021), pp. 545-553
[34]
J. Phu, M. Kalloniatis.
Ability of 24-2C and 24-2 grids to identify central visual field defects and structure-function concordance in glaucoma and suspects.
Am J Ophthalmol., 219 (2020), pp. 317-331
[35]
S.K. Gardiner, W.H. Swanson, D. Goren, S.L. Mansberger, S. Demirel.
Assessment of the reliability of standard automated perimetry in regions of glaucomatous damage.
Ophthalmology., 121 (2014), pp. 1359-1369
[36]
K. Nouri-Mahdavi, D. Hoffman, M. Ralli, J. Caprioli.
Comparison of methods to predict visual field progression in glaucoma.
Arch Ophthalmol., 125 (2007), pp. 1176-1181
[37]
P. Casas-Llera, G. Rebolleda, F.J. Muñoz-Negrete, F. Arnalich-Montiel, M. Pérez-López, R. Fernández-Buenaga.
Visual field index rate and event-based glaucoma progression analysis: Comparison in a glaucoma population.
Br J Ophthalmol., 93 (2009), pp. 1576-1579
[38]
A. Antón, M. Pazos, B. Martín, J.M. Navero, M.E. Ayala, M. Castany, et al.
Glaucoma progression detection: Agreement, sensitivity, and specificity of expert visual field evaluation, event analysis, and trend analysis.
Eur J Ophthalmol., 23 (2013), pp. 187-195
[39]
F.A. Medeiros, R.N. Weinreb, G. Moore, J.M. Liebmann, C.A. Girkin, L.M. Zangwill.
Integrating event- and trend-based analyses to improve detection of glaucomatous visual field progression.
Ophthalmology., 119 (2012), pp. 458-467
[40]
J.W. Cho, K.R. Sung, S.-C. Yun, J.H. Na, Y. Lee, M.S. Kook.
Progression detection in different stages of glaucoma: Mean deviation versus visual field index.
Jpn J Ophthalmol., 56 (2012), pp. 128-133
[41]
A. Heijl, B. Bengtsson, L. Hyman, M.C. Leske, Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial Group.
Natural history of open-angle glaucoma.
Ophthalmology., 116 (2009), pp. 2271-2276
[42]
D.R. Anderson, S.M. Drance, M. Schulzer, Collaborative Normal-Tension Glaucoma Study Group.
Natural history of normal-tension glaucoma.
Ophthalmology., 108 (2001), pp. 247-253
[43]
B.C. Chauhan, R. Malik, L.M. Shuba, P.E. Rafuse, M.T. Nicolela, P.H. Artes.
Rates of glaucomatous visual field change in a large clinical population.
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci., 55 (2014), pp. 4135-4143
[44]
A. Heijl, P. Buchholz, G. Norrgren, B. Bengtsson.
Rates of visual field progression in clinical glaucoma care.
Acta Ophthalmol., 91 (2012), pp. 406-412
[45]
A. Salonikiou, P. Founti, V. Kilintzis, A. Antoniadis, E. Anastasopoulos, T. Pappas, et al.
Tolerable rates of visual field progression in a population-based sample of patients with glaucoma.
Br J Ophthalmol., 102 (2018), pp. 916-921
[46]
Z. Wu, L.J. Saunders, F.B. Daga, A. Diniz-Filho, F.A. Medeiros.
Frequency of testing to detect visual field progression derived using a longitudinal cohort of glaucoma patients.
Ophthalmology., 124 (2017), pp. 786-792
[47]
M. Fallon, O. Valero, M. Pazos, A. Antón.
Diagnostic accuracy of imaging devices in glaucoma: A meta-analysis.
Surv Ophthalmol., 62 (2017), pp. 446-461
[48]
E. Karvonen, K. Stoor, M. Luodonpää, P. Hägg, T. Lintonen, J. Liinamaa, et al.
Diagnostic performance of modern imaging instruments in glaucoma screening.
Br J Ophthalmol., 104 (2020), pp. 1399-1405
[49]
V. Kansal, J.J. Armstrong, R. Pintwala, C. Hutnik.
Optical coherence tomography for glaucoma diagnosis: An evidence based meta-analysis.
PLoS One., 13 (2018), pp. e0190621
[50]
G. Holló, F. Naghizadeh.
Influence of a new software version of the RTVue-100 optical coherence tomograph on the detection of glaucomatous structural progression.
Eur J Ophthalmol., 25 (2015), pp. 410-415
[51]
C.K. Leung, M. Yu, R.N. Weinreb, C. Ye, S. Liu, G. Lai, et al.
Retinal nerve fiber layer imaging with spectral-domain optical coherence tomography: A prospective analysis of age-related loss.
Ophthalmology., 119 (2012), pp. 731-737
[52]
B.C. Chauhan, J.R. Vianna, G.P. Sharpe, S. Demirel, C.A. Girkin, C.Y. Mardin, et al.
Differential effects of aging in the macular retinal layers, neuroretinal rim, and peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer.
Ophthalmology., 127 (2020), pp. 177-185
[53]
Z. Wu, L.J. Saunders, L.M. Zangwill, F.B. Daga, J.G. Crowston, F.A. Medeiros.
Impact of normal aging and progression definitions on the specificity of detecting retinal nerve fiber layer thinning.
Am J Ophthalmol., 181 (2017), pp. 106-113
[54]
G. Holló, Q. Zhou.
Evaluation of retinal nerve fiber layer thickness and ganglion cell complex progression rates in healthy, ocular hypertensive, and glaucoma eyes with the Avanti RTVue-XR Optical Coherence Tomograph based on 5-year follow-up.
J Glaucoma., 25 (2016), pp. e905-e909
[55]
X. Zhang, B.A. Francis, A. Dastiridou, V. Chopra, O. Tan, R. Varma, et al.
Longitudinal and cross-sectional analyses of age effects on retinal nerve fiber layer and ganglion cell complex thickness by Fourier-Domain OCT.
Transl Vis Sci Technol., 5 (2016), pp. 1
[56]
Y.H. Jo, K.R. Sung, J.W. Shin.
Effects of age on peripapillary and macular vessel density determined using optical coherence tomography angiography in healthy eyes.
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci., 60 (2019), pp. 3492-3498
[57]
C.K.S. Leung, C. Ye, R.N. Weinreb, M. Yu, G. Lai, D.S. Lam.
Impact of age-related change of retinal nerve fiber layer and macular thicknesses on evaluation of glaucoma progression.
Ophthalmology., 120 (2013), pp. 2485-2492
[58]
Y.J. Huo, Y. Guo, L. Li, H.Z. Wang, Y.X. Wang, R. Thomas, et al.
Age-related changes in and determinants of macular ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer thickness in normal Chinese adults.
Clin Exp Ophthalmol., 46 (2018), pp. 400-406
[59]
A.J. Tatham, F.A. Medeiros.
Detecting structural progression in glaucoma with optical coherence tomography.
Ophthalmology., 124 (2017), pp. S57-S65
[60]
W.J. Lee, S.U. Baek, Y.K. Kim, K.H. Park, J.W. Jeoung.
Rates of ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer thinning in normal open-angle glaucoma and pseudoexfoliation glaucoma eyes: A trend-based analysis.
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci., 60 (2019), pp. 599-604
[61]
W.J. Lee, Y.K. Kim, K.H. Park, J.W. Jeoung.
Evaluation of ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer thinning in eyes with optic disc hemorrhage: A trend-based progression analysis.
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci., 58 (2017), pp. 6449-6456
[62]
T. Liu, A.J. Tatham, C.P.B. Gracitelli, L.M. Zangwill, R.N. Weinreb, F.A. Medeiros.
Rates of retinal nerve fiber layer loss in contralateral eyes of glaucoma patients with unilateral progression by conventional methods.
Ophthalmology., 122 (2015), pp. 2243-2251
[63]
J.W. Shin, K.R. Sung, G.C. Lee, M.K. Durbin, D. Cheng.
Ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer change detected by optical coherence tomography indicates progression in advanced glaucoma.
Ophthalmology., 124 (2017), pp. 1466-1474
[64]
A. Belghith, F.A. Medeiros, C. Bowd, J.M. Liebmann, C.A. Girkin, R.N. Weinreb, et al.
Structural change can be detected in advanced-glaucoma eyes.
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci., 57 (2016), pp. OCT511-OCT518
[65]
N.I. Kurysheva, L.V. Lepeshkina.
Detection of primary angle closure glaucoma progression by optical coherence tomography.
J Glaucoma., 30 (2021), pp. 410-420
[66]
X. Zhang, R.K. Parrish, D.S. Greenfield, B.A. Francis, R. Varma, J.S. Schuman, et al.
Predictive factors for the rate of visual field progression in the advanced imaging for glaucoma study.
Am J Ophthalmol., 202 (2019), pp. 62-71
[67]
X. Zhang, A. Dastiridou, B.A. Francis, O. Tan, R. Varma, D.S. Greenfield, et al.
Comparison of glaucoma progression detection by optical coherence tomography and visual field.
Am J Ophthalmol., 184 (2017), pp. 63-74
[68]
H.W. Hou, C. Lin, C.K.-S. Leung.
Integrating macular ganglion cell inner plexiform layer and parapapillary retinal nerve fiber layer measurements to detect glaucoma progression.
Ophthalmology., 125 (2018), pp. 822-831
[69]
C.K. Leung, C.Y.L. Cheung, R.N. Weinreb, K. Qiu, S. Liu, H. Li, et al.
Evaluation of retinal nerve fiber layer progression in glaucoma: A study on optical coherence tomography guided progression analysis.
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci., 51 (2010), pp. 217-222
[70]
S. Moghimi, L.M. Zangwill, R.C. Penteado, K. Hasenstab, E. Ghahari, H. Hou, et al.
Macular and optic nerve head vessel density and progressive retinal nerve fiber layer loss in glaucoma.
Ophthalmology., 125 (2018), pp. 1720-1728
[71]
H.Y.-L. Park, D.Y. Shin, S.J. Jeon, C.K. Park.
Association between parapapillary choroidal vessel density measured with optical coherence tomography angiography and future visual field progression in patients with glaucoma.
JAMA Ophthalmol., 137 (2019), pp. 681-688
[72]
S. Moghimi, C. Bowd, L.M. Zangwill, R.C. Penteado, K. Hasenstab, H. Hou, et al.
Measurement floors and dynamic ranges of OCT and OCT angiography in glaucoma.
Ophthalmology., 126 (2019), pp. 980-988
[73]
V. Mohammadzadeh, A. Rabiolo, Q. Fu, E. Morales, A.L. Coleman, S.K. Law, et al.
Longitudinal macular structure-function relationships in glaucoma.
Ophthalmology., 127 (2020), pp. 888-900
[74]
O. Tan, D.S. Greenfield, B.A. Francis, R. Varma, J.S. Schuman, D. Huang.
Estimating visual field mean deviation using optical coherence tomographic nerve fiber layer measurements in glaucoma patients.
Sci Rep., 9 (2019), pp. 18528
[75]
J.E.A. Majoor, K.A. Vermeer, E.-R. Andrinopoulou, H.G. Lemij.
Contrast-to-noise ratios for assessing the detection of progression in the various stages of glaucoma.
Transl Vis Sci Technol., 8 (2019), pp. 8
[76]
S.A. Banegas, A. Antón, A. Morilla-Grasa, M. Bogado, E.M. Ayala, J. Moreno-Montañes.
Agreement among spectral-domain optical coherence tomography, standard automated perimetry, and stereophotography in the detection of glaucoma progression.
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci., 56 (2015), pp. 1253-1260
[77]
K. Suda, T. Akagi, H. Nakanishi, H. Noma, H.O. Ikeda, T. Kameda, et al.
Evaluation of structure-function relationships in longitudinal changes of glaucoma using the spectralis OCT follow-up mode.
Sci Rep., 8 (2018), pp. 17158
[78]
B.S. Ashimatey, W.H. Swanson.
Between-subject variability in healthy eyes as a primary source of structural-functional discordance in patients with glaucoma.
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci., 57 (2016), pp. 502-507
[79]
C.N. Urata, E.B. Mariottoni, A.A. Jammal, N.G. Ogata, A.C. Thompson, S.I. Berchuck, et al.
Comparison of short- and long-term variability in standard perimetry and spectral domain optical coherence tomography in glaucoma.
Am J Ophthalmol., 210 (2020), pp. 19-25
[80]
K. Suda, M. Hangai, T. Akagi, H. Noma, Y. Kimura, T. Hasegawa, et al.
Comparison of longitudinal changes in functional and structural measures for evaluating progression of glaucomatous optic neuropathy.
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci., 56 (2015), pp. 5477-5484
[81]
N.G. Seth, S. Kaushik, S. Kaur, S. Raj, S.S. Pandav.
5-year disease progression of patients across the glaucoma spectrum assessed by structural and functional tools.
Br J Ophthalmol., 102 (2018), pp. 802-807
[82]
D.F. Garway-Heath, H. Zhu, Q. Cheng, K. Morgan, C. Frost, D.P. Crabb, et al.
Combining optical coherence tomography with visual field data to rapidly detect disease progression in glaucoma: A diagnostic accuracy study.
Health Technol Assess., 22 (2018), pp. 1-106
[83]
X. Zhang, N. Loewen, O. Tan, D.S. Greenfield, J.S. Schuman, R. Varma, et al.
Predicting development of glaucomatous visual field conversion using baseline Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography.
Am J Ophthalmol., 163 (2016), pp. 29-37
[84]
X. Zhang, A. Dastiridou, B.A. Francis, O. Tan, R. Varma, D.S. Greenfield, et al.
Baseline Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography structural risk factors for visual field progression in the advanced imaging for glaucoma study.
Am J Ophthalmol., 172 (2016), pp. 94-103
[85]
M. Yu, C. Lin, R.N. Weinreb, G. Lai, V. Chiu, C.K.S. Leung.
Risk of visual field progression in glaucoma patients with progressive retinal nerve fiber layer thinning: A 5-year prospective study.
Ophthalmology., 123 (2016), pp. 1201-1210
[86]
R.Y. Abe, A. Diniz-Filho, L.M. Zangwill, C.P.B. Gracitelli, A.H. Marvasti, R.N. Weinreb, et al.
The relative odds of progressing by structural and functional tests in glaucoma.
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci., 57 (2016), pp. OCT421-OCT428
[87]
J.H. Na, K.R. Sung, S.H. Baek, S.T. Kim, K. Shon, J.J. Jung.
Rates and patterns of macular and circumpapillary retinal nerve fiber layer thinning in preperimetric and perimetric glaucomatous eyes.
J Glaucoma., 24 (2015), pp. 278-285
[88]
N. Hammel, A. Belghith, R.N. Weinreb, F.A. Medeiros, N. Mendoza, L.M. Zangwill.
Comparing the rates of retinal nerve fiber layer and ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer loss in healthy eyes and in glaucoma eyes.
Am J Ophthalmol., 178 (2017), pp. 38-50
[89]
D.C. Hood, E. Tsamis, N.K. Bommakanti, D.B. Joiner, L.A. al-Aswad, D.M. Blumberg, et al.
Structure-function agreement is better than commonly thought in eyes with early glaucoma.
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci., 60 (2019), pp. 4241-4248
[90]
H. Öhnell, A. Heijl, L. Brenner, H. Anderson, B. Bengtsson.
Structural and functional progression in the early manifest glaucoma trial.
Ophthalmology., 123 (2016), pp. 1173-1180
[91]
H. Öhnell, A. Heijl, H. Anderson, B. Bengtsson.
Detection of glaucoma progression by perimetry and optic disc photography at different stages of the disease: Results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial.
Acta Ophthalmol., 95 (2017), pp. 281-287
[92]
F.A. Medeiros, R. Lisboa, R.N. Weinreb, C.A. Girkin, J.M. Liebmann, L.M. Zangwill.
A combined index of structure and function for staging glaucomatous damage.
Arch Ophthalmol., 130 (2012), pp. 1107-1116
[93]
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).
Glaucoma: Diagnosis and Management.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (UK), (2017),
[94]
J.J. Gómez-Valverde, A. Antón, G. Fatti, B. Liefers, A. Herranz, A. Santos, et al.
Automatic glaucoma classification using color fundus images based on convolutional neural networks and transfer learning.
Biomed Opt Express., 10 (2019), pp. 892-913
[95]
F. Li, L. Yan, Y. Wang, J. Shi, H. Chen, X. Zhang, et al.
Deep learning-based automated detection of glaucomatous optic neuropathy on color fundus photographs.
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol., 258 (2020), pp. 851-867
[96]
X. Liu, L. Faes, A.U. Kale, S.K. Wagner, D.J. Fu, A. Bruynseels, et al.
A comparison of deep learning performance against health-care professionals in detecting diseases from medical imaging: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Lancet Digit Health., 1 (2019), pp. e271-e297
[97]
F.A. Medeiros, A.A. Jammal, A.C. Thompson.
From machine to machine: An OCT-trained deep learning algorithm for objective quantification of glaucomatous damage in fundus photographs.
Ophthalmology., 126 (2019), pp. 513-521
[98]
A.C. Thompson, A.A. Jammal, S.I. Berchuck, E.B. Mariottoni, F.A. Medeiros.
Assessment of a segmentation-free deep learning algorithm for diagnosing glaucoma from optical coherence tomography scans.
JAMA Ophthalmol., 138 (2020), pp. 333-339
[99]
S. Asano, H. Murata, M. Matsuura, Y. Fujino, A. Miki, M. Tanito, et al.
Validating the efficacy of the binomial pointwise linear regression method to detect glaucoma progression with multicentral database.
Br J Ophthalmol., 104 (2020), pp. 569-574
[100]
S.I. Berchuck, S. Mukherjee, F.A. Medeiros.
Estimating rates of progression and predicting future visual fields in glaucoma using a deep variational autoencoder.
Sci Rep., 9 (2019), pp. 18113
[101]
L. Brigatti, K. Nouri-Mahdavi, M. Weitzman, J. Caprioli.
Automatic detection of glaucomatous visual field progression with neural networks.
Arch Ophthalmol., 115 (1997), pp. 725-728
[102]
M.H. Goldbaum, I. Lee, G. Jang, M. Balasubramanian, P.A. Sample, R.N. Weinreb, et al.
Progression of patterns (POP): A machine classifier algorithm to identify glaucoma progression in visual fields.
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci., 53 (2012), pp. 6557-6567
[103]
A. Lin, D. Hoffman, D.E. Gaasterland, J. Caprioli.
Neural networks to identify glaucomatous visual field progression.
Am J Ophthalmol., 135 (2003), pp. 49-54
[104]
P.A. Sample, C. Boden, Z. Zhang, J. Pascual, T.-W. Lee, L.M. Zangwill, et al.
Unsupervised machine learning with independent component analysis to identify areas of progression in glaucomatous visual fields.
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci., 46 (2005), pp. 3684-3692
[105]
A. Tucker, V. Vinciotti, X. Liu, D. Garway-Heath.
A spatio-temporal Bayesian network classifier for understanding visual field deterioration.
Artif Intell Med., 34 (2005), pp. 163-177
[106]
M. Wang, L.Q. Shen, L.R. Pasquale, P. Petrakos, S. Formica, M.V. Boland, et al.
An artificial intelligence approach to detect visual field progression in glaucoma based on spatial pattern analysis.
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci., 60 (2019), pp. 365-375
[107]
S. Yousefi, M. Balasubramanian, M.H. Goldbaum, F.A. Medeiros, L.M. Zangwill, R.N. Weinreb, et al.
Unsupervised Gaussian mixture-model with expectation maximization for detecting glaucomatous progression in standard automated perimetry visual fields.
Transl Vis Sci Technol., 5 (2016), pp. 2
[108]
S. Yousefi, T. Elze, L.R. Pasquale, O. Saeedi, M. Wang, L.Q. Shen, et al.
Monitoring glaucomatous functional loss using an artificial intelligence-enabled dashboard.
Ophthalmology., 127 (2020), pp. 1170-1178
[109]
S. Yousefi, M.H. Goldbaum, M. Balasubramanian, T.-P. Jung, R.N. Weinreb, F.A. Medeiros, et al.
Glaucoma progression detection using structural retinal nerve fiber layer measurements and functional visual field points.
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng., 61 (2014), pp. 1143-1154
[110]
S. Yousefi, M.H. Goldbaum, M. Balasubramanian, F.A. Medeiros, L.M. Zangwill, J.M. Liebmann, et al.
Learning from data: recognizing glaucomatous defect patterns and detecting progression from visual field measurements.
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng., 61 (2014), pp. 2112-2124
[111]
S. Yousefi, M.H. Goldbaum, E.S. Varnousfaderani, A. Belghith, T.-P. Jung, F.A. Medeiros, et al.
Detecting glaucomatous change in visual fields: Analysis with an optimization framework.
J Biomed Inform., 58 (2015), pp. 96-103
[112]
S. Yousefi, T. Kiwaki, Y. Zheng, H. Sugiura, R. Asaoka, H. Murata, et al.
Detection of longitudinal visual field progression in glaucoma using machine learning.
Am J Ophthalmol., 193 (2018), pp. 71-79
[113]
C. Bowd, I. Lee, M.H. Goldbaum, M. Balasubramanian, F.A. Medeiros, L.M. Zangwill, et al.
Predicting glaucomatous progression in glaucoma suspect eyes using relevance vector machine classifiers for combined structural and functional measurements.
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci., 53 (2012), pp. 2382-2389
[114]
M. Christopher, A. Belghith, R.N. Weinreb, C. Bowd, M.H. Goldbaum, L.J. Saunders, et al.
Retinal nerve fiber layer features identified by unsupervised machine learning on optical coherence tomography scans predict glaucoma progression.
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci., 59 (2018), pp. 2748-2756
[115]
S. Demirel, B. Fortune, J. Fan, R.A. Levine, R. Torres, H. Nguyen, et al.
Predicting progressive glaucomatous optic neuropathy using baseline standard automated perimetry data.
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci., 50 (2009), pp. 674-680
[116]
Garcia G-GP, K. Nitta, M.S. Lavieri, C. Andrews, X. Liu, E. Lobaza, et al.
Using Kalman filtering to forecast disease trajectory for patients with normal tension glaucoma.
Am J Ophthalmol., 199 (2019), pp. 111-119
[117]
P. Kazemian, M.S. Lavieri, M.P. van Oyen, C. Andrews, J.D. Stein.
Personalized prediction of glaucoma progression under different target intraocular pressure levels using filtered forecasting methods.
Ophthalmology., 125 (2018), pp. 569-577
[118]
J. Lee, Y.K. Kim, J.W. Jeoung, A. Ha, Y.W. Kim, K.H. Park.
Machine learning classifiers-based prediction of normal-tension glaucoma progression in young myopic patients.
Jpn J Ophthalmol., 64 (2020), pp. 68-76
[119]
Y.-Y. Liu, H. Ishikawa, M. Chen, G. Wollstein, J.S. Schumnan, J.M. Rehg.
Longitudinal modeling of glaucoma progression using 2-dimensional continuous-time hidden Markov model.
Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv., 16 (2013), pp. 444-451
[120]
F.A. Medeiros, A.A. Jammal, E.B. Mariottoni.
Detection of progressive glaucomatous optic nerve damage on fundus photographs with deep learning.
Ophthalmology., 128 (2021), pp. 383-392
[121]
K. Park, J. Kim, J. Lee.
Visual field prediction using recurrent neural network.
Sci Rep., 9 (2019), pp. 8385
[122]
G.J. Schell, M.S. Lavieri, J.E. Helm, X. Liu, D.C. Musch, M.P. van Oyen, et al.
Using filtered forecasting techniques to determine personalized monitoring schedules for patients with open-angle glaucoma.
Ophthalmology., 121 (2014), pp. 1539-1546
[123]
Y. Song, H. Ishikawa, M. Wu, Y.-Y. Liu, K.A. Lucy, F. Lavinsky, et al.
Clinical prediction performance of glaucoma progression using a 2-dimensional continuous-time hidden markov model with structural and functional measurements.
Ophthalmology., 125 (2018), pp. 1354-1361
[124]
J.C. Wen, C.S. Lee, P.A. Keane, S. Xiao, A.S. Rokem, P.P. Chen, et al.
Forecasting future Humphrey Visual Fields using deep learning.
PLoS One., 14 (2019), pp. e0214875
[125]
A. Belghith, C. Bowd, F.A. Medeiros, M. Balasubramanian, R.N. Weinreb, L.M. Zangwill.
Learning from healthy and stable eyes: A new approach for detection of glaucomatous progression.
Artif Intell Med., 64 (2015), pp. 105-115
[126]
K.F. Damji, R. Behki, L. Wang.
Target IOP Workshop participants Canadian perspectives in glaucoma management: Setting target intraocular pressure range.
Can J Ophthalmol., 38 (2003), pp. 189-197
[127]
R. Sihota, D. Angmo, D. Ramaswamy, T. Dada.
Simplifying «target» intraocular pressure for different stages of primary open-angle glaucoma and primary angle-closure glaucoma.
Indian J Ophthalmol., 66 (2018), pp. 495-505
[128]
P. Founti, C. Bunce, A.P. Khawaja, C.J. Doré, J. Mohamed-Noriega, D.F. Garway-Heath, et al.
Risk factors for visual field deterioration in the United Kingdom Glaucoma Treatment Study.
Ophthalmology., 127 (2020), pp. 1642-1651
[129]
E. Bak, Y.W. Kim, A. Ha, Y.K. Kim, K.H. Park, J.W. Jeoung.
Pre-perimetric open angle glaucoma with young age of onset: natural clinical course and risk factors for progression.
Am J Ophthalmol., 216 (2020), pp. 121-131
[130]
A. Heijl, M.C. Leske, B. Bengtsson, L. Hyman, B. Bengtsson, M. Hussein, et al.
Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: Results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial.
Arch Ophthalmol., 120 (2002), pp. 1268-1279
[131]
D.F. Garway-Heath, D.P. Crabb, C. Bunce, G. Lascaratos, F. Amalfitano, N. Anand, et al.
Latanoprost for open-angle glaucoma (UKGTS): A randomised, multicentre, placebo-controlled trial.
Lancet., 385 (2015), pp. 1295-1304
[132]
C. Vass, C. Hirn, T. Sycha, O. Findl, P. Bauer, L. Schmetterer.
Medical interventions for primary open angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev., (2007), pp. CD003167
[133]
Grupo de trabajo de la Guía de práctica clínica sobre el glaucoma de ángulo abierto. Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad. Agencia de Qualitat i Avaluació Sanitàries de Catalunya (AQuAS) y Centro Cochrane Iberoamericano (CCIb). Guías de Práctica Clínica en el SNS: AQuAS. 2017.
[134]
Y. Yokoyama, R. Kawasaki, H. Takahashi, S. Maekawa, S. Tsuda, K. Omodaka, et al.
Effects of Brimonidine and Timolol on the progression of visual field defects in open-angle glaucoma: A single-center randomized trial.
J Glaucoma., 28 (2019), pp. 575-583
[135]
B.C. Chauhan, F.S. Mikelberg, P.H. Artes, A.G. Balazsi, R.P. LeBlanc, M.R. Lesk, et al.
Canadian Glaucoma Study: 3. Impact of risk factors and intraocular pressure reduction on the rates of visual field change.
Arch Ophthalmol., 128 (2010), pp. 1249-1255
[136]
M.V. Boland, A.-M. Ervin, D.S. Friedman, H.D. Jampel, B.S. Hawkins, D. Vollenweider, et al.
Comparative effectiveness of treatments for open-angle glaucoma: A systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.
Ann Intern Med., 158 (2013), pp. 271-279
[137]
A. Garg, V. Vickerstaff, N. Nathwani, D. Garway-Heath, E. Konstantakopoulou, G. Ambler, et al.
Primary selective laser trabeculoplasty for open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension: Clinical outcomes, predictors of success, and safety from the laser in glaucoma and ocular hypertension trial.
Ophthalmology., 126 (2019), pp. 1238-1248
[138]
J.L. Jay, D. Allan.
The benefit of early trabeculectomy versus conventional management in primary open angle glaucoma relative to severity of disease.
Eye (Lond)., 3 (1989), pp. 528-535
[139]
J.L. Jay, S.B. Murray.
Early trabeculectomy versus conventional management in primary open angle glaucoma.
Br J Ophthalmol., 72 (1988), pp. 881-889
[140]
C. Migdal, W. Gregory, R. Hitchings.
Long-term functional outcome after early surgery compared with laser and medicine in open-angle glaucoma.
Ophthalmology., 101 (1994), pp. 1651-1656
[141]
N.K. Janz, P.A. Wren, P.R. Lichter, D.C. Musch, B.W. Gillespie, K.E. Guire, et al.
The Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study: Interim quality of life findings after initial medical or surgical treatment of glaucoma.
Ophthalmology., 108 (2001), pp. 1954-1965
[142]
J. Burr, A. Azuara-Blanco, A. Avenell, A. Tuulonen.
Medical versus surgical interventions for open angle glaucoma.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev., (2012), pp. CD004399
