Comparing Glaucomatous Disc Change Using Stereo Disc Viewing and the MatchedFlicker Software Program in Ophthalmologists-in-Training

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Jamie L. Schaefer^a ; ^b ; Zachary L. Lukowski^a ; Alissa M. Meyer^a ; Anthony J. Leoncavallo^a ; Anthony Greer^a ; Gina M. Martorana^a ; Baiming Zou^a ; Jonathan J. Shuster^a ; Mark B. Sherwood^a ; ^{sherwood@ufl.edu" class="auth_mail" title="E-mail the corresponding author}
• 刊名：American Journal of Ophthalmology
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：July 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：167
• 期：Complete
• 页码：88-95
• 全文大小：522 K

文摘

To compare the accuracy and speed of using the computerized MatchedFlicker software program (EyeIC Inc, Narberth, Pennsylvania, USA) to evaluate glaucomatous optic disc change against the traditional gold standard of manually examining stereoscopic disc photographs.

Design

A prospective evaluation of diagnostic technology.

Methods

Two resident ophthalmologists and 1 glaucoma fellow at the University of Florida independently evaluated 140 image pairs from 100 glaucomatous/ocular hypertensive patient eyes using a handheld stereo viewer and the MatchedFlicker program. Fifty had progression to glaucoma as determined by the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study (OHTS) Optic Disc Reading Group and the OHTS Endpoint Committee in the OHTS, and 50 more had photographs taken a few minutes apart, which were negative controls with no progression. Twenty photograph pairs from each group were duplicated to determine reviewer variability. Photographs were examined in alternating blocks of 70 photograph pairs for each method, with the starting viewing method randomized. Reviewer accuracy and time to review for each method were measured.

Results

Using the handheld stereo viewer, the reviewers correctly identified progression or nonprogression in 76.0% of the slide pairs. Using the MatchedFlicker software, 87.6% were correctly identified (P = .011). Evaluator speed averaged 34.1 seconds per image pair with the stereo viewer vs 24.9 seconds with the MatchedFlicker program (P = .044). Overall, Flicker was significantly more specific but less sensitive than stereo slides. Trainees appeared more reluctant to identify glaucoma progression from slides than from Flicker. For the 2 less experienced trainees Flicker was significantly more accurate.

Conclusion

The MatchedFlicker software had a greater accuracy and was quicker to perform than using a handheld stereoscopic viewer.