Díaz-Alemán Valentín T, González-Hernández Marta, Perera-Sanz Daniel, Armas-Domínguez Karintia
a Department of Ophthalmology , Hospital Universitario de Canarias , Santa Cruz de Tenerife , Spain.
Curr Eye Res. 2016;41(3):383-90. doi: 10.3109/02713683.2015.1020169. Epub 2015 Apr 10.
To determine the sensitivity, specificity and agreement between the Quasar program, glaucoma progression analysis (GPA II) event analysis and expert opinion in the detection of glaucomatous progression.
The Quasar program is based on linear regression analysis of both mean defect (MD) and pattern standard deviation (PSD). Each series of visual fields was evaluated by three methods; Quasar, GPA II and four experts. The sensitivity, specificity and agreement (kappa) for each method was calculated, using expert opinion as the reference standard.
The study included 439 SITA Standard visual fields of 56 eyes of 42 patients, with a mean of 7.8 ± 0.8 visual fields per eye. When suspected cases of progression were considered stable, sensitivity and specificity of Quasar, GPA II and the experts were 86.6% and 70.7%, 26.6% and 95.1%, and 86.6% and 92.6% respectively. When suspected cases of progression were considered as progressing, sensitivity and specificity of Quasar, GPA II and the experts were 79.1% and 81.2%, 45.8% and 90.6%, and 85.4% and 90.6% respectively. The agreement between Quasar and GPA II when suspected cases were considered stable or progressing was 0.03 and 0.28 respectively. The degree of agreement between Quasar and the experts when suspected cases were considered stable or progressing was 0.472 and 0.507. The degree of agreement between GPA II and the experts when suspected cases were considered stable or progressing was 0.262 and 0.342.
The combination of MD and PSD regression analysis in the Quasar program showed better agreement with the experts and higher sensitivity than GPA II.
确定在检测青光眼病情进展方面，Quasar程序、青光眼病情进展分析（GPA II）事件分析与专家意见之间的敏感性、特异性及一致性。
Quasar程序基于平均缺损（MD）和模式标准差（PSD）的线性回归分析。每一系列视野均通过三种方法进行评估：Quasar、GPA II以及四位专家。以专家意见作为参考标准，计算每种方法的敏感性、特异性及一致性（kappa值）。
该研究纳入了42例患者56只眼的439个SITA标准视野，每只眼平均有7.8±0.8个视野。当将疑似病情进展病例视为稳定时，Quasar、GPA II及专家的敏感性和特异性分别为86.6%和70.7%、26.6%和95.1%、86.6%和92.6%。当将疑似病情进展病例视为病情进展时，Quasar、GPA II及专家的敏感性和特异性分别为79.1%和81.2%、45.8%和90.6%、85.4%和90.6%。当疑似病例被视为稳定或病情进展时，Quasar与GPA II之间的一致性分别为0.03和0.28。当疑似病例被视为稳定或病情进展时，Quasar与专家之间的一致性程度分别为0.472和0.507。当疑似病例被视为稳定或病情进展时，GPA II与专家之间的一致性程度分别为0.262和0.342。
Quasar程序中MD和PSD回归分析的结合与专家意见的一致性更好，且比GPA II具有更高的敏感性。
