Glaucoma Progression Diagnosis: The Agreement between Clinical Judgment and Statistical Software

Background: To explore the agreement between clinical judgment and Guided Progression Analysis II (GPAII) in the evaluation of visual fields (VF) progression in patients with glaucoma. Methods: Three glaucoma experts and three general ophthalmologists were asked to rate the VF series by classifying them as progressive through the observation of the overview report. The agreement between clinical judgment and GPAII event analysis (EA) and trend analysis (TA) was assessed by Cohen statistic. The sensitivity and specificity of clinical judgment in detecting the presence of progression was evaluated considering the results of GPAII as the reference standard. Results: 66 VF series were included in the study. Glaucoma experts, general ophthalmologists, GPAII EA, and GPAII TA found progression in 39%, 38%, 15%, and 21% of the VF series (p < 0.05). The clinical judgment of glaucoma experts and general ophthalmologists was discordant with GPAII EA in 27.2% and 28.7% (k = 0.35, 95% CI 0.15-0.56 and k = 0.30, 95% CI 0.09-0.52) and with GPAII TA in 21.2% and 25.7% of the VF series examined (k = 0.51, 95% CI 0.31-0.72 and k = 0.41, 95% CI 0.18-0.62). Considering the GPAII EA and TA as reference standard, glaucoma experts showed a sensitivity of 90% and 92.8% and a specificity of 69.6% and 75%, while general ophthalmologists showed a sensitivity of 80% and 78.5% and a specificity of 69.6% and 73%. Conclusions: The agreement between clinical judgment and GPAII ranges from fair to moderate. Glaucoma experts showed better ability than general ophthalmologists in detecting VF progression.

Automated summary

This study examined the agreement between clinical judgment and GPAII in evaluating visual field progression in glaucoma patients. Glaucoma experts showed better ability than general ophthalmologists in detecting progression, but the agreement between clinical judgment and GPAII ranged from fair to moderate.