Vitale S, Smith T D, Quigley T, Kerrigan-Baumrind T A, Pease T E, Varma R, Friedman T S, Katz J, Tielsch J M
Dana Center for Preventive Ophthalmology, Wilmer Ophthalmological Institute, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
J Glaucoma. 2000 Oct;9(5):346-56. doi: 10.1097/00061198-200010000-00002.
To compare the sensitivity and specificity of four approaches to glaucoma screening.
Case patients were persons with possible, probable, or definite glaucomatous optic nerve damage, as judged by a glaucoma specialist using Humphrey 24-2 threshold findings and clinical assessment of disc and nerve fiber layer, identified in the population-based Baltimore Eye Survey Follow-up Study. Control patients were participants in the same study, frequency-matched for age, without evidence of glaucomatous optic nerve damage. Participants underwent optic disc photography (Topcon ImageNet), disc imaging (GlaucomaScope), scanning laser polarimetry (Nerve Fiber Analyzer), and suprathreshold field testing (Dicon).
A total of 100 case patients with open-angle glaucoma and 149 control patients were included. Objective imaging had the best screening performance. For the GlaucomaScope, a criterion of cup-to-disc ratio of -0.68 had a sensitivity of 72% and specificity of 82% for detecting eyes with definite or probable glaucomatous optic nerve damage. For the nerve fiber layer, a criterion of The Number as > or = 20 had a sensitivity of 69% and specificity of 77% for detecting eyes with definite or probable glaucomatous optic nerve damage. Usable data could be obtained in 93% of participants with the Dicon and the Nerve Fiber Analyzer and in 82% and 87% of participants with the GlaucomaScope and Topcon instruments, respectively.
Vertical cup-to-disc ratio, as measured by the GlaucomaScope or Topcon instruments, and the Nerve Fiber Layer neural network Number had the best combination of sensitivity and specificity among the instruments tested. The Nerve Fiber Analyzer had the highest percentage of participants with usable data.
比较四种青光眼筛查方法的敏感性和特异性。
病例患者为在基于人群的巴尔的摩眼病调查随访研究中,由青光眼专科医生根据Humphrey 24-2阈值检查结果以及视盘和神经纤维层的临床评估判断为可能、很可能或确诊青光眼性视神经损伤的患者。对照患者为同一研究中年龄频率匹配、无青光眼性视神经损伤证据的参与者。参与者接受了视盘摄影(拓普康ImageNet)、视盘成像(青光眼视野仪)、扫描激光偏振仪(神经纤维分析仪)和超阈值视野检查(迪康)。
共纳入100例开角型青光眼病例患者和149例对照患者。客观成像具有最佳的筛查性能。对于青光眼视野仪,杯盘比为-0.68的标准在检测确诊或很可能患有青光眼性视神经损伤的眼睛时,敏感性为72%,特异性为82%。对于神经纤维层,数值≥20的标准在检测确诊或很可能患有青光眼性视神经损伤的眼睛时,敏感性为69%,特异性为77%。使用迪康和神经纤维分析仪时,93%的参与者可获得可用数据,使用青光眼视野仪和拓普康仪器时,分别有82%和87%的参与者可获得可用数据。
在测试的仪器中,通过青光眼视野仪或拓普康仪器测量的垂直杯盘比以及神经纤维层神经网络数值具有最佳的敏感性和特异性组合。神经纤维分析仪获得可用数据的参与者比例最高。