Simfield: A Computer Simulated Visual Field Test to Screen for Glaucoma
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12974/2309-6136.2016.04.01.2Keywords:
Glaucoma screening, visual fields, Simfield, glaucoma, Humphrey.Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of a computer simulated visual field test (Simfield) as a screening tool for glaucoma.
Design/Participants/Methods: 36 glaucoma or glaucoma suspect patients (53 eyes) from one ophthalmology clinic between October 2013 and May 2014 used the Simfield program within six months of a reliable performance on a 24-2 SITA standard Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer Exam. The exam measured threshold values at the same 54 points as the 24-2 SITA standard software as well as false positives, false negatives, and fixation losses. Two glaucoma specialists and one general ophthalmologist analyzed the Simfield results in masked fashion and determined whether there was evidence of a glaucomatous defect in any of the 4 quadrants of each field. These results were compared to the corresponding HFA tests to determine sensitivity and specificity.
Results: The sensitivity of Simfield ranged from 51-76% and the specificity was 67-88%. In a sub analysis that eliminated mild defects, defined as defects in a field with mean deviation < 7.0, sensitivity improved to 75-91% and specificity was 69-91%. The average false positive rate was 5.2%, the average false negative rate was 3.7%, and the average fixation loss rate was 27.7%.
Conclusions: Simfield is an effective test for identifying moderate to severe glaucomatous visual field loss and can be accessed from any home computer. While the cost to detect glaucoma in one patient using current screening methods is estimated at $1000, Simfield can be used for free anywhere that a computer is available.
References
Quigley HA and Broman AT. The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. Br J Ophthalmol 2006; 90: 262-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2005.081224
Hollands Hussein, Johnson Davin, Hollands Simon, et al. Do findings on routine examination identify patients at risk for primary open-angle glaucoma? The rational clinical examination systematic review. JAMA 2013; 309(19): 2035- 42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.5099
Leske MC, Heijl A, Hussein M, et al. Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial Group. Factors for glaucoma progression and the effect of treatment. Arch Ophthalmol 2003; 121(1): 48-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archopht.121.1.48
Quigley HA. Number of people with glaucoma worldwide. BrJ Ophthalmol 1996; 80: 389-393. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjo.80.5.389
Hernandez RA, Burr JM and Vale LD. Economic evaluation of screening for open-angle glaucoma. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008; 24: 203-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462308080288
and Khaw PT. Primary open angle glaucoma. Lancet 2004; 363: 1711-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16257-0
Johnson CA and Keitner JL. Computer analysis of visual field loss and optimization of automated perimetric test strategies. Ophthalmology 1981; 88: 1058-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(81)80037-1
Hart WM Jr and Becker B. The onset and evolution of glaucomatous visual field defects. Ophthalmology 1982; 89: 268-279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(82)34798-3
Asman P, HeijI A, Olsson J and Rootzen H. Spatial analyses of glaucomatous visual fields; a comparison with traditional visual fieid indices. Acta Ophthalmol 1992; 70: 679-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-3768.1992.tb02152.x
Brusini P. Clinical use of a new method for visual field damage classification in glaucoma. Eur J Ophthalmol 1996; 6: 402-7.
Henson DB, Spenceiey SE and Bull DR. Spatial classification of glaucomatous visual field loss. BrJ Ophthalmol 1996; 80: 526-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjo.80.6.526
Hilton S, Katz J and Zeger S. Classifying visual field data Stat Med 1996; 15: 1349-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097- 0258(19960715)15:13<1349::AID-SIM270>3.0.CO;2-B
Wall M and Johnson CA. Principles and Techniques of the Examination of the Visual Sensory System, Chapter 2, Walsh and Hoyt’s Textbook of Neuro-Ophthalmology. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins 2005; 1: 83-149.
Gottlieb LK, Schwartz B and Pauker SG. Glaucoma screening. A cost-effectiveness analysis. Surv Ophthalmol 1983; 28: 206-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0039-6257(83)90098-X
Tatemichi M, Nakano T, Tanaka K, et al. Performance of glaucoma mass screening with only a visual field test using frequency-doubling technology perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol 2002; 134: 529-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9394(02)01684-7
Peeters A, Schouten JS, Webers CA, et al. Costeffectiveness of early detection and treatment of ocular hypertension and primary open-angle glaucoma by the ophthalmologist. Eye 2008; 22(3): 354-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.eye.6702637
Tielsch JM, Katz J, Singh K, et al. A population-based evaluation of glaucoma screening: the Baltimore Eye Survey. Am J Epidemiol 1991; 134: 1102-10.
Lichter PR. Variability of expert observers in evaluating the optic disc. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 1976; 74: 532-72.
American-Academy-of-Ophthalmology. Preferred Practice Patterns. Primary Open Angle Glaucoma. 2010 http://one.aao.org/CE/PracticeGuidelines/PPP_Content.aspx ?cid=93019a87-4649-4130-8f94-b6a9b19144d2 (accessed 29 May2013).
Ianchulev T, Pham P, Makarov V, et al. Peristat: a computerbased perimetry self-test for cost-effective population screening of glaucoma. Current Eye Research 2005; 30(1): 1-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02713680490522399
Landers JA, Goldberg I and Graham SL. Detection of early visual field loss in glaucoma using frequency-doubling perimetry and short-wavelength automated perimetry. Arch Ophthalmol 2003; 121(12): 1705-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archopht.121.12.1705
Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap) – A metadriven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support, J Biomed Inform 2009; 42(2): 377-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010
Olsson J, Bengtsson B, Heijl A, et al. An improved method to estimate frequency of false positive answers in computerized perimetry. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1997; 75: 181-183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0420.1997.tb00120.x
Bjerre A, Grigg JR, Parry N, et al. Test-Retest Variability of Multifocal Visual Evoked Potential and SITA Standard Perimetry in Glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004; 45(11): 4035-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/iovs.04-0099
Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J. Normal variability of static perimetric threshold values across the central visual field. Arch Ophthalmol 1989; 105: 1544-49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1987.01060110090039
