Literature DB >> 10704548

Comparison of frequency doubling perimetry with humphrey visual field analysis in a glaucoma practice.

Y Burnstein1, N J Ellish, M Magbalon, E J Higginbotham.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of frequency doubling perimetry with Humphrey visual field testing used as the gold standard.
METHODS: Frequency doubling perimetry and Humphrey visual field testing (24-2) were performed on 29 consecutive patients in a glaucoma practice. Data for the right eye were used to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and receiver operating characteristic curves.
RESULTS: For the frequency doubling perimetry in screening mode, and with an abnormal glaucoma hemifield test used as the gold standard, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 89.3%, 81.5%, or 75.0% for the presence of mild, moderate, or severe relative defects, respectively. Similar results were found with the use of mean deviation (P <.05) to define Humphrey visual field defects. For frequency doubling perimetry in threshold mode, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 93.4% with the presence of any defect (P <.05) used as the criterion for an abnormal case, and an abnormal glaucoma hemifield test as the gold standard. In all cases, the threshold mode detected defects better than the screening mode.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10704548     DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9394(99)00364-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0002-9394            Impact factor:   5.258


  25 in total

1.  Clinical comparison of frequency doubling technology perimetry and Humphrey perimetry.

Authors:  R Casson; B James; A Rubinstein; H Ali
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 4.638

2.  A comparison of perimetric results with the Medmont and Humphrey perimeters.

Authors:  J Landers; A Sharma; I Goldberg; S Graham
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 4.638

Review 3.  Imaging in glaucoma.

Authors:  Daniel M Stein; Gadi Wollstein; Joel S Schuman
Journal:  Ophthalmol Clin North Am       Date:  2004-03

4.  The distribution of visual field defects per quadrant in standard automated perimetry as compared to frequency doubling technology perimetry.

Authors:  Wadih M Zein; Ziad F Bashshur; Rola F Jaafar; Baha' N Noureddin
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2010-10-06       Impact factor: 2.031

5.  Performance of the 24-2-5 frequency doubling technology screening test: a prospective case study.

Authors:  P G D Spry; H M Hussin; J M Sparrow
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2007-03-27       Impact factor: 4.638

6.  Interpretation of the Humphrey Matrix 24-2 test in the diagnosis of preperimetric glaucoma.

Authors:  Jin A Choi; Na Young Lee; Chan Kee Park
Journal:  Jpn J Ophthalmol       Date:  2009-01-30       Impact factor: 2.447

Review 7.  [Functional glaucoma diagnosis].

Authors:  C Erb; K Göbel
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 1.059

8.  Anatomic and functional correlation of frequency-doubling technology perimetry (FDTP) in multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  Harold Merle; Stéphane Olindo; Angélique Donnio; Raymond Richer; Didier Smadja; Philippe Cabre
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2011-06-03       Impact factor: 2.031

9.  Predicting progression of glaucoma from rates of frequency doubling technology perimetry change.

Authors:  Daniel Meira-Freitas; Andrew J Tatham; Renato Lisboa; Tung-Mei Kuang; Linda M Zangwill; Robert N Weinreb; Christopher A Girkin; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Felipe A Medeiros
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2013-11-26       Impact factor: 12.079

10.  Combining Frequency Doubling Technology Perimetry and Scanning Laser Polarimetry for Glaucoma Detection.

Authors:  Jean-Claude Mwanza; Joshua L Warren; Jessica T Hochberg; Donald L Budenz; Robert T Chang; Pradeep Y Ramulu
Journal:  J Glaucoma       Date:  2015 Oct-Nov       Impact factor: 2.503

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.