This article is more than 5 years old. Information may no longer be current.

Study shows marginal agreement in assessing visual field loss

Br J Ophthalmol. 2011;95(9):1276-1283

Add topic to email alerts

Receive an email when new articles are posted on

Please provide your email address to receive an email when new articles are posted on .

Subscribe

Added to email alerts

You've successfully added to your alerts. You will receive an email when new content is published.

Click Here to Manage Email Alerts

You've successfully added to your alerts. You will receive an email when new content is published.

Click Here to Manage Email Alerts

Back to Healio

We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com.

Back to Healio

Agreement between examiners using three methods of assessing progressive visual field loss was moderate, a study found.

Nine clinicians used Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA, Carl Zeiss Meditec) overview printouts, Guided Progression Analysis (GPA, Carl Zeiss Meditec) and Guided Progression Analysis (GPA2) to assess the progression status of each visual field series. They were presented in random order, but each patient's visual field was recorded chronologically within each series.

Statistical analysis was used to gauge the level of agreement between clinicians.

Clinicians analyzed 303 tests comprising 38 visual field series with a mean of 7.9 tests.

Study results showed that intraobserver agreement was 0.58 between HFA overview printouts and GPA, 0.55 between HFA overview printouts and GPA2, and 0.56 between GPA and GPA2.

Interobserver agreement was 0.65 for HFA overview printouts, 0.54 for GPA and 0.70 for GPA2, the authors said.