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

Jamie L. Schaefer, Zachary Lee Lukowski, Alissa M. Meyer, Anthony J. Leoncavallo, Anthony Greer, Gina M. Martorana, Baiming Zou, Jonathan J. Shuster, Mark B. Sherwood

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)88-95
Number of pages8
JournalAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume167
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Ocular Hypertension
Software
Glaucoma
Optic Disk
Reading
Therapeutics
Technology
Ophthalmologists

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Comparing Glaucomatous Disc Change Using Stereo Disc Viewing and the MatchedFlicker Software Program in Ophthalmologists-in-Training. / Schaefer, Jamie L.; Lukowski, Zachary Lee; Meyer, Alissa M.; Leoncavallo, Anthony J.; Greer, Anthony; Martorana, Gina M.; Zou, Baiming; Shuster, Jonathan J.; Sherwood, Mark B.

In: American Journal of Ophthalmology, Vol. 167, 01.07.2016, p. 88-95.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Schaefer, Jamie L. ; Lukowski, Zachary Lee ; Meyer, Alissa M. ; Leoncavallo, Anthony J. ; Greer, Anthony ; Martorana, Gina M. ; Zou, Baiming ; Shuster, Jonathan J. ; Sherwood, Mark B. / Comparing Glaucomatous Disc Change Using Stereo Disc Viewing and the MatchedFlicker Software Program in Ophthalmologists-in-Training. In: American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2016 ; Vol. 167. pp. 88-95.
@article{7dd1316df08d46f99e8449409b9f21ce,
title = "Comparing Glaucomatous Disc Change Using Stereo Disc Viewing and the MatchedFlicker Software Program in Ophthalmologists-in-Training",
abstract = "Purpose 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.",
author = "Schaefer, {Jamie L.} and Lukowski, {Zachary Lee} and Meyer, {Alissa M.} and Leoncavallo, {Anthony J.} and Anthony Greer and Martorana, {Gina M.} and Baiming Zou and Shuster, {Jonathan J.} and Sherwood, {Mark B.}",
year = "2016",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ajo.2016.03.031",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "167",
pages = "88--95",
journal = "American Journal of Ophthalmology",
issn = "0002-9394",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing Glaucomatous Disc Change Using Stereo Disc Viewing and the MatchedFlicker Software Program in Ophthalmologists-in-Training

AU - Schaefer, Jamie L.

AU - Lukowski, Zachary Lee

AU - Meyer, Alissa M.

AU - Leoncavallo, Anthony J.

AU - Greer, Anthony

AU - Martorana, Gina M.

AU - Zou, Baiming

AU - Shuster, Jonathan J.

AU - Sherwood, Mark B.

PY - 2016/7/1

Y1 - 2016/7/1

N2 - Purpose 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.

AB - Purpose 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84989816035&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84989816035&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ajo.2016.03.031

DO - 10.1016/j.ajo.2016.03.031

M3 - Article

VL - 167

SP - 88

EP - 95

JO - American Journal of Ophthalmology

JF - American Journal of Ophthalmology

SN - 0002-9394

ER -