Intra- and Interrater Agreement with Cumulative Defect Curves

Chan, Angela B.; Chauhan, Balwantray C.; LeBlanc, Raymond P.; McCormick, Terry A.; Shaw, Alyson M.

doi:10.1097/00061198-199704000-00008

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This curve has a natural tendency to produce more stable results than individual thresholds 19. The information from sector analysis is useful to differentiate between localised and diffuse changes in visual field.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detection of visual-field deterioration by Glaucoma Progression Analysis and Threshold Noiseless Trend programs

Diaz-Aleman

Antón

Rosa

et al. 2008

British Journal of Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detection of visual-field deterioration by Glaucoma Progression Analysis and Threshold Noiseless Trend programs

Diaz-Aleman

Antón

Rosa

et al. 2008

British Journal of Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[11][12][13][14][15] Intra-and interrater agreement of psychophysical tests was investigated regarding the Functional Field Score 16 and cumulative defect curves. 17 The interobserver agreement interpreting the test results of different devices was also examined, 18,19 but no studies concerning intra-and interoperator reliability of the examination itself were found.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interexaminer and intraexaminer reliability of the microperimeter MP-1

Weingessel

Sacu

Vécsei-Marlovits

et al. 2008

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To evaluate the interexaminer and intraexaminer reliability of macular microperimetry using the microperimeter MP-1. Methods Participants: Fifteen healthy volunteers younger than 40 years of age (Group 1), 15 healthy subjects over 60 years (Group 2), and five patients with age-related macular degeneration (Group 3). Observation procedure: Two examiners (E1 and E2) measured, in random order, interexaminer (E2-E1a) reliability. Another examination was undergone by one of the examiners a week later to evaluate the intraexaminer (E1b-E1a) reliability. Main outcome measures: Macular sensitivity (mean threshold (decibel)) and stability of fixation were determined using MP1 microperimetry. Agreement was analysed by means of Bland-Altman plots and by the determination of the intraclass correlation coefficient. Results The interexaminer (E2-E1a) and the intraexaminer (E1b-E1a) differences in the mean threshold values were not statistically significant (P ¼ 0.850, 95% confidence Interval (CI) ¼ À0.265 to 0.319; P ¼ 0.246, 95% CI ¼ À0.099 to 0.375, respectively). Limits of agreement and intraclass correlation coefficients also showed good agreement in each group. Conclusions A good reliability was found for the mean threshold values in all the three groups, indicating examiner-independent measurements.

show abstract