Correlation between Functional Staging and DDLS in Primary Open Angle Glaucoma Patients in Vietnam


  • Van Anh Thi BUI Vietnam National Institute of Ophthalmology, Vietnam
  • Thom Thi VU School of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vietnam National University, Ha Noi, Viet Nam
  • Tung Thanh HOANG Hanoi Medical University, Dong Da, Ha Noi, Vietnam



DDLS, eGSS, mGSS, HPA, Glaucoma


Clinically, there are many systems of visual field imaging systems. The agreement between glaucoma function and appearance is still uncertain. This study was conducted to compare visual field staging classifications (as function staging) with Disc Damage Likelihood Scale (DDLS as appearance staging) in Primary Open Angle Glaucoma (POAG). A cross-section study was performed using 55 patients (90 eyes) examined and treated by the Vietnam National Institute of Ophthalmology from 9/2016 - 9/2017. The MD (Mean Deviation), PSD (Pattern Standard Deviation), and VFI (Visual Field Index) indexes were recorded and were used to classify glaucoma staging according to categories of eGSS (enhanced Glaucoma Severity Staging), mGSS (modified Glaucoma Severity Staging), HPA (Hodapp-Parrish-Aderson), AGIS (Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study), and DDLS. Using SPSS 16.0 software, statistical significance was tested with proper tests of Chi-square test, Fisher exact test, Kappa (to assess the agreement-disagreement), and Spearman Rank (to assess the level of correlation). Mean VFI were -11.49 dB (MD), 5.85 dB (PSD), and 74.2 % (VFI). Compared to DDLS, all systems had slight agreement (K < 0.2). The disagreement percentage was highest in eGSS (70 %), followed by mGSS (50 %) and HPA (48.9 %). In terms of definitive diagnosis, HPA and mGSS showed a substantial agreement (K > 0.6) with AGIS, which was higher than that between eGSS and AGIS (0.773 and 0.75 vs 0.399), with p < 0.001. In terms of staging detection, the agreement between HPA, mGSS, and AGIS was substantial (K > 0.6), while that between eGSS and AGIS was fair (K < 0.4). In conclusion, mGSS and HPA tended to show stronger agreement with standard classifications than eGSS. mGSS should be used in clinical practice and research.


Download data is not yet available.


Metrics Loading ...


LA Kerrigan-Baumrind, HA Quigley, ME Pease, DF Kerrigan and RS Mitchell. Number of ganglion cells in glaucoma eyes compared with threshold visual field tests in the same persons. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2000; 41, 741-8.

PH Artes, N O'Leary, DM Hutchison, L Heckler, GP Sharpe, MT Nicolela and BC Chauhan. Properties of the statpac visual field index. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2011; 52, 4030-8.

B Bengtsson and A Heijl. A visual field index for calculation of glaucoma rate of progression. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2008; 145, 343-53.

P Brusini and S Filacorda. Enhanced Glaucoma Staging System (GSS 2) for classifying functional damage in glaucoma. J. Glaucoma. 2008; 15, 40-6.

HJ Chung, JH Choi, YC Lee and SY Kim. Effect of cataract opacity type and Glaucoma severity on visual field index. Optom. Vis. Sci. 2016; 93, 575-8.

C Cook and P Foster. Epidemiology of glaucoma: What's new? Can. J. Ophthalmol. 2012; 47, 223-6.

DW Heo, KN Kim, MW Lee, SB Lee and CS Kim. Properties of pattern standard deviation in open-angle glaucoma patients with hemi-optic neuropathy and bi-optic neuropathy. PloS One 2017; 12, e0171960.

I Kocak, M Zulauf and O Bergamin. Evaluation of the Brusini glaucoma staging system for typing and staging of perimetric results. Ophthalmologica 1998; 212, 221-7.

R Malik, WH Swanson and DF Garway-Health. The ‘structure-function’ relationship in glaucoma-past thingking and current concepts. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 2012; 40, 369-80.

M Ng, PA Sample, JP Pascual, LM Zangwill, CA Girkin, JM Liebman, RN Weinreb and L Rocette. Comparison of visual field severity classification systems for glaucoma. J. Glaucoma. 2012; 21, 551-61.

L Racette, FA Medeiros, LM Zangwill, D Ng, RN Weinreb and PA Sample. Diagnostic accuracy of the Matrix 24-2 and original N-30 frequency-doubling technology tests compared with standard automated perimetry. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2008; 49, 954-60.

GL Spaeth. The disk damage likelihood scale. Glaucoma Today, Bryn Mawr Communications, 2005.

JR Susanna and RM Vessani. Staging glaucoma patient: Why and how? Open Ophthalmol. J. 2009; 3, 59-64.

RM Vessani and RJ Susanna. University of São Paulo Glaucoma Visual Field Staging System (USP-GVFSS): A new way to stage visual field in glaucoma. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2009; 50, 5287.




How to Cite

BUI, V. A. T. ., VU, T. T. ., & HOANG, T. T. . (2021). Correlation between Functional Staging and DDLS in Primary Open Angle Glaucoma Patients in Vietnam. Walailak Journal of Science and Technology (WJST), 18(3), Article 6520 (9 pages).