Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Glaucoma: Overview01:25

Glaucoma: Overview

Glaucoma is an eye condition characterized by increased intraocular pressure that damages the retina and optic nerve, leading to irreversible blindness if left untreated. The human eye has various components, including the cornea, iris, pupil, lens, and optic nerve. Aqueous humor is secreted by the epithelium of the ciliary body in the posterior chamber and flows through the trabecular meshwork and canal of Schlemm, maintaining normal intraocular pressure. The trabecular meshwork and the canal...
Open Angle Glaucoma: Treatment01:27

Open Angle Glaucoma: Treatment

In open-angle glaucoma, the iridocorneal angle remains open, but the trabecular meshwork becomes stiff, slowing down the outflow of aqueous humor. This causes a buildup of aqueous humor in the anterior chamber, leading to a sudden increase in intraocular pressure. The treatment for open-angle glaucoma focuses on reducing the elevated intraocular pressure by either decreasing the secretion of aqueous humor or increasing its outflow.
Drugs such as carbonic anhydrase inhibitors, α2- and...
Angle Closure Glaucoma: Treatment01:28

Angle Closure Glaucoma: Treatment

Angle-closure glaucoma, or closed-angle glaucoma, is an eye condition where the iris bulges out and blocks the iridocorneal angle, resulting in a buildup of aqueous humor and increased intraocular pressure. Immediate medical attention is necessary due to the sudden onset of symptoms. The treatment for angle-closure glaucoma includes short-term and long-term approaches. Short-term treatment involves using eye drops like pilocarpine to lower intraocular pressure by increasing aqueous humor...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Visual Field Testing on the Envision Head-Mounted Perimeter with and without Gaming Elements.

Ophthalmology. Glaucoma·2026
Same author

Larger Real-World OCT Reference Database Improves Accuracy of Glaucoma Flagging Using Summary Metrics.

Translational vision science & technology·2026
Same author

Impact of Major Retinal Vessel Position on Sectoral Peripapillary Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness in Healthy Eyes.

Journal of glaucoma·2025
Same author

Nicotinamide and Pyruvate in Open-Angle Glaucoma: A Randomized Controlled Trial on Neuroprotection-Design and Methodology.

Ophthalmology. Glaucoma·2025
Same author

A Deep Learning Model Detects Glaucoma Based on an OCT Report, but Where Should the Clinician Look to Identify Glaucomatous Damage?

Translational vision science & technology·2025
Same author

A Deep Learning Model for Glaucoma Detection Outperforms Conventional Metrics.

Translational vision science & technology·2025

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 20, 2026

Assessing Early Stage Open-Angle Glaucoma in Patients by Isolated-Check Visual Evoked Potential
07:11

Assessing Early Stage Open-Angle Glaucoma in Patients by Isolated-Check Visual Evoked Potential

Published on: May 25, 2020

Understanding disparities among diagnostic technologies in glaucoma.

Carlos Gustavo V De Moraes1, Jeffrey M Liebmann, Robert Ritch

  • 1Einhorn Clinical Research Center, The New York Eye and Ear Infirmary, and Department of Ophthalmology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York 10003, USA. demoraesmd@gmail.com

Archives of Ophthalmology (Chicago, Ill. : 1960)
|July 11, 2012
PubMed
Summary

Disagreements between standard automated achromatic perimetry (SAP), multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP), and optical coherence tomography (OCT) in diagnosing glaucoma stem from technique limitations and patient variability, not structural-functional discordance.

More Related Videos

Laser Capture Microdissection of Highly Pure Trabecular Meshwork from Mouse Eyes for Gene Expression Analysis
13:47

Laser Capture Microdissection of Highly Pure Trabecular Meshwork from Mouse Eyes for Gene Expression Analysis

Published on: June 3, 2018

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 20, 2026

Assessing Early Stage Open-Angle Glaucoma in Patients by Isolated-Check Visual Evoked Potential
07:11

Assessing Early Stage Open-Angle Glaucoma in Patients by Isolated-Check Visual Evoked Potential

Published on: May 25, 2020

Laser Capture Microdissection of Highly Pure Trabecular Meshwork from Mouse Eyes for Gene Expression Analysis
13:47

Laser Capture Microdissection of Highly Pure Trabecular Meshwork from Mouse Eyes for Gene Expression Analysis

Published on: June 3, 2018

Area of Science:

  • Ophthalmology
  • Medical Technology
  • Diagnostic Imaging

Background:

  • Glaucoma diagnosis relies on multiple imaging and visual field tests.
  • Discrepancies among these tests can complicate diagnosis and treatment planning.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the reasons for disagreement between standard automated achromatic perimetry (SAP), multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP), and optical coherence tomography (OCT) in glaucoma detection.
  • To determine if observed disparities reflect true discordance in structure-function relationships or limitations of the diagnostic methods.

Main Methods:

  • A prospective cross-sectional study involving 138 eyes of 69 patients with glaucomatous optic neuropathy.
  • Eyes were tested using SAP, mfVEP, and OCT.
  • Analysis focused on eyes with worse and better mean deviations (MDs), comparing test results for agreement on abnormality site.

Main Results:

  • Better agreement among SAP, mfVEP, and OCT was observed in eyes with worse mean deviation (MD) compared to those with better MD.
  • For advanced glaucoma cases, all three tests consistently identified the same hemifield abnormality in 53% of cases, and at least two tests were abnormal in 69% of cases.
  • Disparities were attributed to inherent technique limitations and interindividual variability in normative data.

Conclusions:

  • Disagreements among glaucoma diagnostic tests (SAP, mfVEP, OCT) are explainable by known limitations of each modality and patient variability.
  • The agreement between these diagnostic tests may be underestimated by summary statistics.
  • Disagreements do not necessarily indicate a discordance between the structural and functional aspects of glaucoma.