Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Bayes’ theorem applied to perimetric progression detection in glaucoma: from specificity to positive predictive value

  • Clinical Investigation
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To estimate the specificity of a clinical evaluation of a series of visual fields and to calculate the positive predictive value of progression.

Methods

The specificity of a clinical evaluation of a series of visual fields was estimated using nonparametric ranking and probability calculus. The positive predictive value of progression was calculated using Bayes’ theorem. The literature suggests a prior probability of progression of typically 0.10 in the case of one visual field per year. Three different prior probability values were used: 0.05, 0.10, and 0.20. Calculations were performed for a sensitivity of 0.50, 0.80, and 1.00.

Results

Specificity of a clinical evaluation of a series of visual fields was calculated as 0.83 for four fields (two baseline fields, one follow-up field with suspected progression, and one confirmation of the suspected progression), 0.90 for five fields, and 0.95 for six fields. Positive predictive values ranged from 0.14 to 0.83. Positive predictive value was approximately 0.5 for a prior probability of 0.10, a sensitivity of 0.80, and a specificity of 0.90.

Conclusions

Realistic series of visual fields that are apparently progressive have a positive predictive value of typically 0.5, i.e., half of them are stable. In the case of a high prior probability (uncontrolled glaucoma or long interval between successive fields), four fields may suffice to diagnose progression, whereas at least six fields are required if the prior probability is low.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. AGIS investigators (1994) Advanced glaucoma intervention study 2: visual field test scoring and reliability. Ophthalmology 101:1445–1455

    Google Scholar 

  2. Altman DG (1991) Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman & Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chauhan BC, Drance SM, Douglas GR (1990) The use of visual field indices in detecting changes in the visual field in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 31:512–520

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Esterman B (1968) Grid for scoring visual fields. Arch Ophthalmol 79:400–406

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA, Poinoosawmy D, McNaught AI, Crabb DP (1996) Analysis of visual field progression in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 80:40–48

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gardiner SK, Crabb DP (2002) Frequency of testing for detecting visual field progression. Br J Ophthalmol 86:560–564

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, Bengtsson B, Hussein M, EMGT group (2003) Measuring visual field progression in the early manifest glaucoma trial. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 81:286–293

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Bengtsson B, Hussein M, EMGT group (2002) Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression. Arch Ophthalmol 120:1268–1279

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Lindgren A, Olsson J, Asman P, Myers S, Patella M (1990) Extended empirical statistical package for evaluation of single and multiple fields in glaucoma: Statpac 2. In: Mills RP, Heijl A (eds) Perimetry update 1990/1. Kugler, New York, pp 305–315

    Google Scholar 

  11. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J (1986) A package for the statistical analysis of visual fields. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser 49:153–168

    Google Scholar 

  12. Katz J, Congdon N, Friedman DS (1999) Methodological variations in estimating apparent progressive visual field loss in clinical trials of glaucoma treatment. Arch Ophthalmol 117:1137–1142

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Krakau CE (1985) A statistical trap in the evaluation of visual field decay. Acta Ophthalmol Suppl 173:19–21

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lee AC, Sample PA, Blumenthal EZ, Berry C, Zangwill L, Weinreb RN (2002) Infrequent confirmation of visual field progression. Ophthalmology 109:1059–1065

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Leske MC, Heijl A, Hyman L, Bengtsson B, EMGT group (1999) Early manifest glaucoma trial: design and baseline data. Ophthalmology 106:2144–2153

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Musch DC, Lichter PR, Guire KE, Standardi CL (1999) The collaborative initial glaucoma treatment study: study design, methods, and baseline characteristics of enrolled patients. Ophthalmology 106:653–662

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Smith SD, Katz J, Quigley HA (1996) Analysis of progressive change in automated visual fields in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 37:1419–1428

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Spry PGD, Johnson CA (2002) Identification of progressive glaucomatous visual field loss. Surv Ophthalmol 47:158–173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Vesti E, Johnson CA, Chauhan BC (2003) Comparison of different methods for detecting glaucomatous visual field progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44:3873–3879

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Viswanathan AC, Hitchings RA, Fitzke FW (1997) How often do patients need visual field tests? Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 235:563–568

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Dutch Health Care Insurance Council (CVZ) through the Department of Medical Technology Assessment (MTA) of the University Hospital Groningen, the Netherlands.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nomdo M. Jansonius.

Additional information

The author has no financial relationship with the organization that sponsored the research

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jansonius, N.M. Bayes’ theorem applied to perimetric progression detection in glaucoma: from specificity to positive predictive value. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 243, 433–437 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-004-1065-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-004-1065-x

Keywords

Navigation