The Colored Glaucoma Graph: A Useful Aid in the Diagnosis and Management of Patients with Glaucoma

Volume 35, Number # 3, 2007 Series

1. Viswanathan A, Fitzke F, Hitchings R. Early detection of visual field progression in glaucoma: a comparison of PROGRESSOR and STATPAC 2. Brit Journ of Ophthal. 1997;81:1037-1042.

2. Read RM, Spaeth GL. The practical clinical appraisal of the optic disc in glaucoma: the natural history of cup progression and some specific disc-field correlations. Trans Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol. 1974;78:OP255-274.

3. Spaeth GL, Glaucoma in Tasman W and Jaeger AE, Editors, The Wills Eye Hospital Atlas of Clinical Ophthalmology, Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia 1996;91.

4. Lee, et al., Development and validation of a prognostic index for 4-year mortality in older adults. JAMA 2006 February; 295:801-808.

5. Bayer, et al, Validity of a New Disk Grading Scale for Estimating Glaucomatous Damage: Correlation with Visual Field Damage, Am J Ophthalmol.2002 June;133(6):758-63.

6. Henderer, et al, Reliability of the Disk Damage Likelihood Scale, Am J Ophthalmol. 2003 Jan;135(1):44-8.

7. Spaeth, et al, The Disc Damage Likelihood Scale: Reproducibility of a New Method of Estimating the Amount of Optic Nerve Damage Caused by Glaucoma, Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2002;100:181-5.

8. Spaeth, et al, The Disc Damage Likelihood Scale (DDLS): Its Use in the Diagnosis and Management of Glaucoma, Highlights of Ophthalmology, 2003; 31:4-19.

9. H V Danesh-Meyer, B J Gaskin, T Jayusundera, M Donaldson, and G D Gamble,Comparison of disc damage likelihood scale, cup to disc ratio, and Heidelberg retina tomograph in the diagnosis of glaucoma. Br. J. Ophthalmol., Apr 2006; 90: 437-441.

10. Danesh-Meyer H, et al, Regional Correlation of Structure and Function in Glaucoma, Using the Disc Damage Likelihood Scale, Heidelberg Retina Tomograph, and Visual Fields, Ophthalmology 2006;113:603-611 © by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.