We have located links that may give you full text access.
Enhanced Glaucoma Staging System (GSS 2) for classifying functional damage in glaucoma.
Journal of Glaucoma 2006 Februrary
PURPOSE: To introduce a new method, derived from the Glaucoma Staging System (GSS), for classifying glaucomatous visual field defects.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four sample groups composed respectively of 471 (sample #1), 128 (sample #2), 185 (sample #3), and 131 (sample #4) patients with either ocular hypertension or chronic glaucoma were considered. The GSS 2 uses both the MD and CPSD/CLV or PSD/LV perimetric indices to classify visual field defect in 6 stages and in 3 types (generalized, localized, and mixed). The formulas were determined using sample #1. A new borderline stage was created, on the basis of sample #2. The relationship between the PSD/LV and CPSD/CLV values was studied on sample #3 to verify the possibility of using the uncorrected indices instead of the CPSD/CLV. The relationship with other classification methods was studied on sample #4.
RESULTS: The GSS 2 showed a strong level of association with the AGIS and the Hodapp-Parrish-Anderson methods in staging defect severity. A good correlation was also found with a classification based on the Bebie curve.
CONCLUSIONS: The GSS 2 was able to correctly classify both damage severity and perimetric defect type in the sample studied, using either the corrected or uncorrected visual field indices. It is a quick and easy method, and its formulas can be introduced in any software.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four sample groups composed respectively of 471 (sample #1), 128 (sample #2), 185 (sample #3), and 131 (sample #4) patients with either ocular hypertension or chronic glaucoma were considered. The GSS 2 uses both the MD and CPSD/CLV or PSD/LV perimetric indices to classify visual field defect in 6 stages and in 3 types (generalized, localized, and mixed). The formulas were determined using sample #1. A new borderline stage was created, on the basis of sample #2. The relationship between the PSD/LV and CPSD/CLV values was studied on sample #3 to verify the possibility of using the uncorrected indices instead of the CPSD/CLV. The relationship with other classification methods was studied on sample #4.
RESULTS: The GSS 2 showed a strong level of association with the AGIS and the Hodapp-Parrish-Anderson methods in staging defect severity. A good correlation was also found with a classification based on the Bebie curve.
CONCLUSIONS: The GSS 2 was able to correctly classify both damage severity and perimetric defect type in the sample studied, using either the corrected or uncorrected visual field indices. It is a quick and easy method, and its formulas can be introduced in any software.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app