4.6 Review

A Comprehensive Review of Methods and Equipment for Aiding Automatic Glaucoma Tracking

Journal

DIAGNOSTICS
Volume 12, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12040935

Keywords

glaucoma; image processing; glaucomatous papilla; clinical data; disease tracking; eye

Funding

  1. Portuguese funding agency, FCT-Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia [UIDB/50014/2020]
  2. FCT/MEC
  3. FEDER-PT2020 partnership agreement [UIDB/50008/2020]
  4. COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) [CA16226]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article reviews the diagnostic methods used to identify the glaucomatous papilla through technology over the last five years. The current challenges and shortcomings of these methods are analyzed, particularly in terms of automation and independence. Future research topics and challenges to be solved are proposed.
Glaucoma is a chronic optic neuropathy characterized by irreversible damage to the retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL), resulting in changes in the visual field (VC). Glaucoma screening is performed through a complete ophthalmological examination, using images of the optic papilla obtained in vivo for the evaluation of glaucomatous characteristics, eye pressure, and visual field. Identifying the glaucomatous papilla is quite important, as optical papillary images are considered the gold standard for tracking. Therefore, this article presents a review of the diagnostic methods used to identify the glaucomatous papilla through technology over the last five years. Based on the analyzed works, the current state-of-the-art methods are identified, the current challenges are analyzed, and the shortcomings of these methods are investigated, especially from the point of view of automation and independence in performing these measurements. Finally, the topics for future work and the challenges that need to be solved are proposed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available