Dear Dr. Pradeep Kumar
· Please find the updated draft of your results as per your last inputs
 
· If you need any clarifications on tables you can call us to discuss between 9 AM to 2 PM and 4 to 6 PM (if you can’t discuss during that period please specify the date and time convenient for you (Before 9 PM and after 7 Am) to discuss, we shall call you during that time)
Thanks and Best Regards
Gender, Biphasic were explanatory variables
Descriptive analysis: Descriptive analysis was carried out by mean and standard deviation for quantitative variables, frequency and proportion for categorical variables. Data was also represented using appropriate diagrams like bar diagram, pie diagram and box plots.
Inferential statistics:
Quantitative outcome;
The association between categorical explanatory variables and quantitative outcome was assessed by comparing the mean values. The mean differences along with their 95% CI were presented. Independent sample t-test/ ANOVA was used to assess statistical significance.
Categorical outcome:
The association between explanatory variables and categorical outcomes was assessed by cross tabulation and comparison of percentages. Odds ratio along with 95% CI is presented. Chi square test was used to test statistical significance.
P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. IBM SPSS version 22 was used for statistical analysis. (1)
1. IBM Corp. Released 2013. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
RESULTS
A total 120 people were included in the analysis
 Table1: Descriptive analysis of study group in study population (N=120)
Study group
Frequency
Percentages
Glaucoma(Cases)
60
50.00%
Normal(Controls)
60
50.00%
Among the study population 60(50%) people had glaucoma and remaining 60(50%) people were normal (Table 1&fig 1)
Figure1: Bar graph for study group distribution in study population (N=120)
 Table2: Descriptive analysis of glaucoma in study population (N=120)
Glaucoma
Frequency
Percentage
Controls(Normal)
60
50.00%
4
3.30%
Among the study population - 60(50%) were normal, 30(25%) had normal tension glaucoma, 26(21.70%) had primary open angle glaucoma and remaining 4(3.30%) had ocular hypertension.(Table2& figure2)
Figure2: Bar graph for glaucoma distribution in study population (N=120)
Table3: Comparison of study group with gender of study population (N=60)
Gender
20 (66.7%)
16 (53.3%)
Among the glaucoma study group 10(33.3%) were males, 20(66.7%) were females. Among the normal group 14(46.7%) were males and remaining 16(53.3%) were females. The difference between study group and gender was statistically not significant. (P value 0.136)(Table3& figure3)
Figure3: Cluster bar for comparison of study group with gender of study population (N=120)
Table4: Comparison of glaucoma with gender of study population (N=120)
Gender
Glaucoma
32 (53.3%)
20 (66.7%)
18 (69.2%)
2 (50%)
Among the normal group28 (46.7%) were males, 32 (53.3%) were females. Among the normal tension glaucoma 10 (33.3%) were males, 20 (66.7%) were females, among the primary open angle glaucoma 8 (30.8%) were males, 18 (69.2%) were females. Among the ocular hypertension group 2 (50%) were males and remaining 2(50%) were females. The difference across glaucoma and gender was statistically not significant (P value 0.431)(Table4& figure4)
Figure4: Staked column graph for comparison of glaucoma with gender in study population (N=120)
Table5: Comparison of study group with biphasic of study population (N= 120)
Biphasic
35 (58.3%)
40 (66.7%)
Among the glaucoma study group 25 (41.7%) had no biphasic, 35 (58.3%) had biphasic. Among the normal group 20 (33.3%)had no biphasic and remaining 40 (66.7%)had biphasic. The difference between study group and gender was statistically not significant. (P value 0.346)
(Table5& figure5)
Figure5: Cluster bar for comparison of study group with gender of study population (N=120)
Table6: Comparison of glaucoma with biphasic of study population (N=120)
Biphasic
Glaucoma
40 (66.7%)
15 (50%)
17 (65.4%)
3 (75%)
Among the normal group20 (33.3%) had no biphasic, 40 (66.7%) had biphasic. Among the normal tension glaucoma 15 (50%)had no biphasic, 15 (50%)had biphasic, among the primary open angle glaucoma 9 (34.6%)had no biphasic, 17 (65.4%)had biphasic. Among the ocular hypertension group 1 (25%)had no biphasic and remaining 2(50%) 3 (75%). The difference across glaucoma and biphasic was statistically not significant (P value 0.423) (Table6&figure6)
Figure6: Staked column graph for comparison of glaucoma with biphasic in study population (N=120)
Table7: Comparison of mean of PSV OA, EDV OA , RI OA, DS OA across study groups (N=120)
Parameter
.342
The mean of glaucoma (cases) in PSV OA was 25.3 ± 7.98and the normal (control) was 29.84 ± 9.28, the comparison between two groups was statistically significant (P value 0.005).(Table7&f ig7)
The mean of glaucoma (cases) in EDV OA was 5.21 ± 2.25and the normal (control) was 6.13 ± 3, the comparison between two groups was statistically not significant (P value 0.059).(Table7&fig8)
The mean of glaucoma (cases) in RI OA was 0.79 ± 0.06and the normal (control) was 0.79 ± 0.08, the comparison between two groups was statistically not significant (P value 0.775).(Table7&fig9)
The mean of glaucoma (cases) in SD OA was 5.28 ± 1.7and the normal (control) was 5.66 ± 2.52, the comparison between two groups was statistically significant (P value 0.342).(Table7&fig10) NOT
Figure 7: Error bar graph for comparison of mean of PSV OA across study group in study population (N=120)
Figure 8: Error bar graph for comparison of mean of EDV OA across study group in study population (N=120)
Figure 9: Error bar graph for comparison of mean of RI OA across study group in study population (N=120)
Figure 10: Error bar graph for comparison of mean of SD OA across study group in study population (N=120)
Table8: Comparison of mean of PSV CRA, EDV CRA, RI CRA, SD CRA across study groups (N=120)
Parameter
.781
The mean of glaucoma (cases) in PSV CRA was 10.72 ± 4.27and the normal (control) was 10.96 ± 3.56, the comparison between two groups was statistically not significant (P value 0.742). (Table8&fig11)
The mean of glaucoma (cases) in EDV CRA was 2.65 ± 1.1and the normal (control) was 2.89 ± 1.41, the comparison between two groups was statistically not significant (P value 0.321). (Table 8&fig12)
The mean of glaucoma (cases) in RI CRA was 0.75 ± 0.08and the normal (control) was 0.74 ± 0.08, the comparison between two groups was statistically not significant (P value 0.589).(Table8&fig13)
The mean of glaucoma (cases) in SD CRA was 4.46 ± 1.75and the normal (control) was 4.37 ± 1.69, the comparison between two groups was statistically significant (P value 0.781).(Table8&fig14) NOT
Figure 11: Error bar graph for comparison of mean of PSV CRA across study group in study population (N=120)
Figure 12: Error bar graph for comparison of mean of EDV CRA across study group in study population (N=120)
Figure 13: Error bar graph for comparison of mean of RI CRA across study group in study population (N=120)
Figure 14: Error bar graph for comparison of mean of SD CRA across study group in study population (N=120)
Table9: Comparison of mean of PSV SPCA, EDV SPCA, RI SPCA, SD SPCA across study groups (N=120)
Parameter
.457
The mean of glaucoma (cases) in PSV SPCA was 11.12 ± 3.63and the normal (control) was 11.8 ± 3.94, the comparison between two groups was statistically not significant (P value 0.324). (Table 9&fig15)
The mean of glaucoma (cases) in EDV SPCA was 2.72 ± 1.15and the normal (control) was 3.31 ± 1.93, the comparison between two groups was statistically significant (P value 0.047). (Table9&fig16)
The mean of glaucoma (cases) in RI SPCA was 0.75 ± 0.11and the normal (control) was 0.73 ± 0.09, the comparison between two groups was statistically not significant (P value 0.181).(Table9&fig17)
The mean of glaucoma (cases) in SD SPCA was 4.57 ± 2.5and the normal (control) was 4.25 ± 2.28, the comparison between two groups was statistically significant (P value 0.457).(Table9&fig18) NOT
Figure 15: Error bar graph for comparison of mean of PSV SPCA across study group in study population (N=120)
Figure 16: Error bar graph for comparison of mean of EDV SPCA across study group in study population (N=120)
Figure 17: Error bar graph for comparison of mean of RI SPCAacross study group in study population (N=120)
Figure 18: Error bar graph for comparison of mean of SD SPCA across study group in study population (N=120)
Table10: Comparison of mean RI OA across the study groups in study population (N=120)
Glaucoma
Mean difference
P value
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
0.02
-0.05
0.09
0.539
The mean of RI OA with controls (normal) was 0.79 ± 0.08,it was0.8 ± 0.05 in normal tension glaucoma, it was 0.78 ± 0.06 in primary open angle glaucoma, it was 0.78 ± 0.06 in ocular hypertension . The mean difference of RI OA in glaucoma group was statistically not significant. (P value >0.05) (Table10& figure19)
Figure19: Means plot for comparison of mean RI OA across the study groups (N=120)
Table11: Comparison of mean RI CRA across the study groups in study population (N=120)
Glaucoma
Mean difference
P value
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
-0.06
-0.14
0.03
0.202
The mean of RI CRA with controls (normal) glaucoma was 0.74 ± 0.08,it was0.74 ± 0.1in normal tension glaucoma, it was 0.76 ± 0.07 in primary open angle glaucoma, it was 0.8 ± 0.08in ocular hypertension . The mean difference of RI CRA in glaucoma group was statistically not significant. (P value >0.05) (Table11& figure20)
Figure20: Means plot for comparison of mean RI CRA across the study groups (N=120)
Table12: Comparison of mean RI SPCA across the study groups in study population (N=117)
Glaucoma
Mean difference
P value
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
-0.04
-0.14
0.06
0.404
The mean of RI SPCA with controls (normal) glaucoma was 0.73 ± 0.09,it was0.76 ± 0.13in normal tension glaucoma, it was 0.74 ± 0.08 in primary open angle glaucoma, it was 0.77 ± 0.05in ocular hypertension . The mean difference of RI SPCA in glaucoma group was statistically not significant. (P value >0.05) (Table12& figure21)
Figure21: Means plot for comparison of mean RI CRA across the study groups (N=120)
Test Result Variable(s):   PSV OA  
Area
b. Null hypothesis: true area = 0.5
The area under the ROC curve was 0.647, indicating a good predictive value of PSV OA in identifying subjects with normal and glaucoma
Coordinates of the Curve
Positive if Greater Than or Equal Toa
Sensitivity
9.3800
1.000
1.000
10.9150
1.000
.983
12.1250
1.000
.967
12.9150
1.000
.950
13.7000
.983
.950
14.5150
.983
.933
14.7400
.967
.917
14.9350
.950
.917
15.2650
.950
.900
15.4850
.950
.883
15.4950
.950
.867
15.7250
.933
.867
16.2150
.933
.850
17.3350
.933
.833
18.5250
.917
.833
18.8650
.917
.800
18.8850
.900
.783
19.1100
.900
.767
19.4300
.883
.767
19.6000
.867
.733
19.8250
.850
.733
20.0600
.833
.733
20.5100
.833
.717
21.2250
.833
.700
21.7850
.817
.700
22.1250
.817
.683
22.3050
.817
.667
22.4600
.800
.650
22.6050
.783
.650
22.6750
.783
.633
22.7450
.783
.617
22.8550
.783
.600
23.1200
.767
.550
23.3450
.750
.550
23.4700
.750
.533
23.6050
.733
.533
23.6550
.733
.517
23.7400
.733
.500
23.9550
.733
.483
24.1950
.717
.483
24.3800
.717
.467
24.4850
.700
.450
24.5250
.683
.450
24.5950
.667
.450
24.6700
.650
.450
24.7200
.633
.450
24.9150
.633
.433
25.1550
.617
.417
25.3600
.600
.417
25.7900
.600
.400
26.6250
.583
.400
27.2700
.583
.383
27.7400
.567
.383
28.2400
.567
.367
28.4400
.533
.317
28.6350
.533
.300
28.7800
.517
.283
29.0500
.500
.283
29.3900
.500
.267
29.6600
.483
.267
29.8450
.467
.267
29.9650
.450
.250
30.2150
.450
.233
30.3900
.450
.217
30.7400
.400
.217
31.1300
.383
.217
31.2850
.383
.200
31.4050
.383
.183
31.5050
.367
.183
32.0550
.350
.183
32.6100
.333
.183
32.8350
.317
.183
33.0500
.317
.167
33.1700
.317
.150
33.7350
.300
.150
34.3400
.300
.133
34.6650
.283
.133
34.9650
.267
.133
35.3150
.250
.133
35.7450
.250
.117
36.1200
.233
.117
37.0400
.217
.117
37.9350
.200
.117
38.3000
.200
.100
38.5550
.183
.100
38.6550
.183
.083
38.9900
.183
.067
39.5400
.167
.067
40.0500
.167
.050
40.7550
.133
.050
41.6750
.117
.033
42.4050
.117
.017
43.2550
.100
.017
44.3050
.083
.000
45.2450
.067
.000
46.7250
.050
.000
48.6300
.033
.000
52.0700
.017
.000
55.5800
.000
.000
The test result variable(s): PSV OA has at least one tie between the positive actual state group and the negative actual state group.
a. The smallest cutoff value is the minimum observed test value minus 1, and the largest cutoff value is the maximum observed test value plus 1. All the other cutoff values are the averages of two consecutive ordered observed test values.
Male
Controls(Normal) Normal tension glaucoma Primary open angle glaucoma Ocular hypertension 0.53300000000000003 0.66700000000000115 0.69199999999999995 0.5
Glaucoma
Percentage
Glaucoma(cases)
NO Yes 0.33300000000000057 0.66700000000000115
Glaucoma
Percentage
Percentages
Glaucoma
Percentage
Male
Glaucoma(cases) Normal(Controls) 0.66700000000000115 0.53300000000000003