The main cause of low agreement on responses to questionable or questionable progression could be the variability of the various tests. There are many causes of variability, such as.B. 19-22 Previous studies have shown that even experienced examiners have difficulty assessing the progression of reliable VF series when tests are variable.1 Consensus has shown that measurement variability influences each device`s ability to detect progression.23 The objective of the current study is not to determine progression. analyze the causes of variability in OCT or PFD scans. Software. There are 4 measures frequently used for variability: range, interquartile interval, variance and standard deviation. The only available data used to analyze the variability of Humphrey Progress Software expression pages were 95% of the VFI trend analysis, while the standard deviation from the PFD trend analysis was used in the Cirrus OCT progress software. For the current 100 patients, we found that IC was 95% higher (more than 1%) average PFD in 32 patients and a standard deviation above the average of 31 patients of the average thickness of oct RNFL. The case is diagnosed as a progression in patients with a high variation value in the PFD or RNFL thickness with great variability between tests. However, it is difficult to distinguish between variability and actual progression in patients with small variation, but with great variability between tests (figure).
A previous report24 showed that VF variation is low in normal eyes and in children with early glaucoma, increasing from level 0 to 4 from the staging glaucoma system. Similar results have been published, suggesting that low RNFL in patients with advanced glaucoma has been associated with greater variability in the thickness of RNFL25. These results suggest that variability between different tests is responsible for the low consistency in the current study. If Pij is the observed percentage of observations for each cell, the weighted average of weights is on each line; DJ is the weighted average of the weights in each column; The weighting assigned to each cell in the matrix; P is the total percentage of the observed weighted agreement; Pc is the total percentage of the weighted random agreement; and N is the total number of observations made by each observer. The current study also assessed the consistency in the progress analysis of the Cirrus OCT machine. Our results suggest only a moderate interobserver agreement. To our knowledge, the current study is the first to analyze the agreement in this software from the Cirrus OCT tool. However, previous studies on the agreement of other structural tests have been published.
Breusegem et al17 evaluated the Interobserver coefficients among 3 specialists in a set of 2 stereosides optical color series discs for glaukomatouse modifications in 40 patients. The authors reported a moderate interobserver agreement (No. 0.51; 17 In another report with Heidelberg Retina Tomograph (Heidelberg Engineering) For 168 patients, 3 experienced observers found moderate to good correspondence between all Heidelberg retina tomographen methods.18 In the current study, the comparison between the values of the chord in the oct-progression was slightly greater than that of the VF progression.