Department of Ophthalmology, University of Tokyo Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
PLoS One. 2013 Oct 25;8(10):e78630. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0078630. eCollection 2013.
To compare the performance of newly proposed point-wise linear regression (PLR) with the binomial test (binomial PLR) against mean deviation (MD) trend analysis and permutation analyses of PLR (PoPLR), in detecting global visual field (VF) progression in glaucoma.
15 VFs (Humphrey Field Analyzer, SITA standard, 24-2) were collected from 96 eyes of 59 open angle glaucoma patients (6.0 ± 1.5 [mean ± standard deviation] years). Using the total deviation of each point on the 2(nd) to 16(th) VFs (VF2-16), linear regression analysis was carried out. The numbers of VF test points with a significant trend at various probability levels (p<0.025, 0.05, 0.075 and 0.1) were investigated with the binomial test (one-side). A VF series was defined as "significant" if the median p-value from the binomial test was <0.025. Similarly, the progression analysis was carried out using only second to sixth VFs (VF2-6). The performance of each method was evaluated using the 'consistency measures'; proportion both significant (PBS): both VF series (VF2-6 and VF2-16) were "significant", proportion both were not significant (PBNS): both were "not significant", proportion inconsistently significant (PIS): VF2-16 was "not significant" but VF2-6 was "significant". A similar analysis was carried out using VF2-7 and VF2-15 series, and the performance was compared with MD trend analysis and PoPLR.
The PBS of the binomial PLR method (0.14 to 0.86) was significantly higher than MD trend analysis (0.04 to 0.89) and PoPLR (0.09 to 0.93). The PIS of the proposed method (0.0 to 0.17) was significantly lower than the MD approach (0.0 to 0.67) and PoPLR (0.07 to 0.33). The PBNS of the three approaches were not significantly different.
The binomial BLR method gives more consistent results than MD trend analysis and PoPLR, hence it will be helpful as a tool to 'flag' possible VF deterioration.
比较新提出的逐点线性回归（PLR）与二项式检验（binomial PLR）、平均偏差（MD）趋势分析和 PLR 的置换分析（PoPLR）在检测青光眼全局视野（VF）进展方面的性能。
收集 59 名开角型青光眼患者（6.0±1.5[均值±标准差]岁）96 只眼中的 15 个 VF（Humphrey 视野分析仪，SITA 标准，24-2）。使用第 2 至 16 个 VF（VF2-16）上各点的总偏差进行线性回归分析。在不同概率水平（p<0.025、0.05、0.075 和 0.1）下，使用二项式检验（单侧）研究具有显著趋势的 VF 测试点数量。如果二项式检验的中位数 p 值<0.025，则将 VF 系列定义为“显著”。同样，仅使用第 2 至第 6 个 VF（VF2-6）进行进展分析。使用“一致性度量”评估每种方法的性能；比例均显著（PBS）：两个 VF 系列（VF2-6 和 VF2-16）均为“显著”，比例均不显著（PBNS）：均为“不显著”，比例不一致显著（PIS）：VF2-16 为“不显著”，但 VF2-6 为“显著”。使用 VF2-7 和 VF2-15 系列进行类似的分析，并将性能与 MD 趋势分析和 PoPLR 进行比较。
二项式 PLR 方法的 PBS（0.14 至 0.86）显著高于 MD 趋势分析（0.04 至 0.89）和 PoPLR（0.09 至 0.93）。所提出方法的 PIS（0.0 至 0.17）显著低于 MD 方法（0.0 至 0.67）和 PoPLR（0.07 至 0.33）。三种方法的 PBNS 没有显著差异。
二项式 BLR 方法比 MD 趋势分析和 PoPLR 提供更一致的结果，因此它将有助于作为一种“标记”可能的 VF 恶化的工具。
