FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4235203416> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4235203416 endingPage "e79" @default.
• W4235203416 startingPage "e78" @default.
• W4235203416 abstract "We appreciate the sincere concern of our esteemed colleagues regarding our article,1Saeedi O.J. Elze T. D'Acunto L. et al.Agreement and predictors of discordance of 6 visual field progression algorithms.Ophthalmology. 2019; 126: 822-828Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (19) Google Scholar and appreciate the opportunity to clarify the purpose of our work. Specifically, we set out “to determine the agreement of six established visual field progression algorithms in a large dataset of visual fields from multiple institutions.”1Saeedi O.J. Elze T. D'Acunto L. et al.Agreement and predictors of discordance of 6 visual field progression algorithms.Ophthalmology. 2019; 126: 822-828Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (19) Google Scholar Rabiolo et al state that, “to adequately compare the various methods, the authors should provide a measure of specificity for each technique.” This comment assumes comparison of the various methods requires an assessment of the validity of each measure using some “ground truth” by which sensitivity and specificity can be calculated or estimated. Because we had only the visual field (VF) data available (i.e., no imaging or clinical information), there is no clear gold standard for glaucomatous VF progression to which we could compare each of the algorithms we evaluated. Validity estimations based on simulating stable VFs and forecasting future outcomes are alternative approaches but were not in the scope of the present work. Given this limitation, our work addresses the agreement of algorithms in a large, real-world dataset and does not address the question of the validity of these progression measures (i.e., if they truly measure glaucomatous VF loss progression). We specifically do not address validity in the article, leaving it open as to which of the measures is “best.” The agreement of these algorithms is particularly important in comparing prior studies that have used ≥1 of these algorithms. Previous studies have attempted to determine agreement of VF progression algorithms (independent of their sensitivity/specificity) on smaller datasets and concurred with our findings that different algorithms show moderate agreement at best (reference 8 in the original article).2Katz J. Congdon N. Friedman D.S. Methodological variations in estimating apparent progressive visual field loss in clinical trials of glaucoma treatment.Arch Ophthalmol. 1999; 117: 1137-1142Crossref PubMed Scopus (98) Google Scholar, 3Rao H.L. Kumbar T. Kumar A.U. et al.Agreement between event-based and trend-based glaucoma progression analyses.Eye (Lond). 2013; 27: 803-808Crossref PubMed Scopus (13) Google Scholar, 4Nouri-Mahdavi K. Caprioli J. Coleman A.L. et al.Pointwise linear regression for evaluation of visual field outcomes and comparison with the advanced glaucoma intervention study methods.Arch Ophthalmol. 2005; 123: 193-199Crossref PubMed Scopus (49) Google Scholar Nouri-Mahdavi et al,4Nouri-Mahdavi K. Caprioli J. Coleman A.L. et al.Pointwise linear regression for evaluation of visual field outcomes and comparison with the advanced glaucoma intervention study methods.Arch Ophthalmol. 2005; 123: 193-199Crossref PubMed Scopus (49) Google Scholar for example, compared the agreement of pointwise linear regression and the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study criteria. The second comment that “the cutoffs used for some of the trend-based methods seem not to be suitably chosen” assumes that there is an optimal cutoff for trend-based methods and assumes that the purpose of our study was to determine the performance of each criteria against some arbitrary criterion of “true” VF worsening or stability. The slopes we selected have been applied in the past to determine VF progression, and we feel this justifies their inclusion here. An alternative approach would be to turn the mean deviation (MD) cutoff slope into a function and optimize it to produce the best agreement with Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study and Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study, but this was not our intent. Furthermore, we cite prior work from Artes et al (reference 20 in the original article), which uses different, less stringent cutoffs for progression for MD and VFI and similarly finds moderate agreement between the 2 methods by Fleiss’s criteria (reference 17 in the original article). Therefore, changing the cutoffs is both beyond the scope of the article and unlikely to change the results. We believe the results of this study are valid and important both to clinicians who treat glaucoma and to researchers in the field. While the question of validity of VF progression algorithms is outside the scope of our work, it is very important and best done with databases that include other clinical information. Re: Saeedi et al: Agreement and predictors of discordance of 6 visual field progression algorithms (Ophthalmology. 2019;126:822–828)OphthalmologyVol. 126Issue 10PreviewWe read with interest the article by Saeedi et al.1 The authors tested 6 methods to detect glaucomatous visual field (VF) progression on a large cohort of glaucomatous patients: mean deviation (MD) rate, Visual Field Index (VFI) rate, pointwise linear regression, permutation analyses of the pointwise linear regression, the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study scoring system, and the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study scoring system. They found poor to moderate intermethod agreements with only about 6% of eyes labeled as progressing by the majority of the methods. Full-Text PDF" @default.
• W4235203416 created "2022-05-12" @default.
• W4235203416 creator A5010480125 @default.
• W4235203416 creator A5011529236 @default.
• W4235203416 creator A5032325357 @default.
• W4235203416 creator A5034761457 @default.
• W4235203416 creator A5037853888 @default.
• W4235203416 creator A5042306559 @default.
• W4235203416 creator A5047341378 @default.
• W4235203416 creator A5056039431 @default.
• W4235203416 creator A5059589308 @default.
• W4235203416 creator A5060466667 @default.
• W4235203416 creator A5062453784 @default.
• W4235203416 creator A5084071114 @default.
• W4235203416 creator A5085400880 @default.
• W4235203416 creator A5089968723 @default.
• W4235203416 date "2019-10-01" @default.
• W4235203416 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W4235203416 title "Reply" @default.
• W4235203416 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2019.04.036" @default.
• W4235203416 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31543117" @default.
• W4235203416 hasPublicationYear "2019" @default.
• W4235203416 type Work @default.
• W4235203416 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4235203416 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4235203416 hasAuthorship W4235203416A5010480125 @default.
• W4235203416 hasAuthorship W4235203416A5011529236 @default.
• W4235203416 hasAuthorship W4235203416A5032325357 @default.
• W4235203416 hasAuthorship W4235203416A5034761457 @default.
• W4235203416 hasAuthorship W4235203416A5037853888 @default.
• W4235203416 hasAuthorship W4235203416A5042306559 @default.
• W4235203416 hasAuthorship W4235203416A5047341378 @default.
• W4235203416 hasAuthorship W4235203416A5056039431 @default.
• W4235203416 hasAuthorship W4235203416A5059589308 @default.
• W4235203416 hasAuthorship W4235203416A5060466667 @default.
• W4235203416 hasAuthorship W4235203416A5062453784 @default.
• W4235203416 hasAuthorship W4235203416A5084071114 @default.
• W4235203416 hasAuthorship W4235203416A5085400880 @default.
• W4235203416 hasAuthorship W4235203416A5089968723 @default.
• W4235203416 hasBestOaLocation W42352034161 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConcept C118487528 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConcept C119767625 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConcept C119857082 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConcept C124101348 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConcept C202444582 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConcept C23123220 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConcept C2522767166 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConcept C2776058522 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConcept C2780009758 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConcept C40993552 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConcept C83867959 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConcept C9652623 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConceptScore W4235203416C11413529 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConceptScore W4235203416C118487528 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConceptScore W4235203416C119767625 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConceptScore W4235203416C119857082 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConceptScore W4235203416C124101348 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConceptScore W4235203416C126838900 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConceptScore W4235203416C154945302 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConceptScore W4235203416C17744445 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConceptScore W4235203416C199539241 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConceptScore W4235203416C202444582 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConceptScore W4235203416C23123220 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConceptScore W4235203416C2522767166 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConceptScore W4235203416C2776058522 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConceptScore W4235203416C2779473830 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConceptScore W4235203416C2780009758 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConceptScore W4235203416C33923547 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConceptScore W4235203416C40993552 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConceptScore W4235203416C41008148 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConceptScore W4235203416C71924100 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConceptScore W4235203416C83867959 @default.
• W4235203416 hasConceptScore W4235203416C9652623 @default.
• W4235203416 hasIssue "10" @default.
• W4235203416 hasLocation W42352034161 @default.
• W4235203416 hasLocation W42352034162 @default.
• W4235203416 hasOpenAccess W4235203416 @default.
• W4235203416 hasPrimaryLocation W42352034161 @default.
• W4235203416 hasRelatedWork W2022892318 @default.
• W4235203416 hasRelatedWork W2217200097 @default.
• W4235203416 hasRelatedWork W2798181134 @default.
• W4235203416 hasRelatedWork W2945323790 @default.
• W4235203416 hasRelatedWork W4206163452 @default.
• W4235203416 hasRelatedWork W4286750367 @default.
• W4235203416 hasRelatedWork W4288754364 @default.
• W4235203416 hasRelatedWork W4308093190 @default.
• W4235203416 hasRelatedWork W4308734192 @default.
• W4235203416 hasRelatedWork W4312831135 @default.
• W4235203416 hasVolume "126" @default.

• next