Literature DB >> 12169968

Within-test variability of frequency-doubling perimetry using a 24-2 test pattern.

Paul G D Spry1, Chris A Johnson.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate patient-response (within-test) variability for targets of the smaller frequency-doubling technology perimetry test that employs a 24-2 stimulus-presentation pattern.
METHODS: Patient-response variability was examined using the method of constant stimuli for standard (10 degrees ) and small (4 degrees ) customized frequency-doubling technology perimetry stimuli presented on a CRT screen. Small stimuli were designed for use in a 24-2 test pattern. Matched test locations were examined in 24 subjects (8 normal, 8 in whom glaucoma was suspected, and 8 glaucoma patients). Threshold sensitivity (in decibels for the 50% detection level) and variability (interquartile range in decibels) were obtained from frequency-of-seeing curves derived from data fitting with cumulative Gaussian functions. Groups were compared using a two-way ANOVA.
RESULTS: Thresholds obtained using standard and small stimuli were highly correlated (R = 0.94, P < 0.001, Pearson correlation), although smaller targets systematically estimated sensitivity to be 2.0 dB (95% CI, 1.7-2.4 dB) lower than standard targets. No significant difference in patient-response variability was observed between standard and small targets (P = 0.067), although both target sizes demonstrated small but significant increases in variability with reduced sensitivity. Mean (SD) patient-response variability for the normal, suspect, and glaucoma groups was 1.0 (0.6), 0.9 (0.4), and 1.8 (1.4) dB for standard-sized stimuli and 1.1 (0.8), 1.5 (1.2), and 2.0 (0.9) dB for small stimuli.
CONCLUSIONS: Small (4 degrees ) frequency-doubling technology perimetry targets have variability characteristics that are not statistically significantly different from those observed for standard-sized (10 degrees ) stimuli. Reduction in frequency-doubling technology perimetry stimulus size necessary to produce 24-2 test resolution is unlikely to affect test repeatability. Smaller, more numerous stimuli may offer clinical advantages both in terms of detecting small defects and identifying progressive loss.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12169968     DOI: 10.1097/00061198-200208000-00007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Glaucoma        ISSN: 1057-0829            Impact factor:   2.503


  9 in total

1.  Measurement error of visual field tests in glaucoma.

Authors:  P G D Spry; C A Johnson; A M McKendrick; A Turpin
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 4.638

2.  Characteristics of the normative database for the Humphrey matrix perimeter.

Authors:  Andrew John Anderson; Chris A Johnson; Murray Fingeret; John L Keltner; Paul G D Spry; Michael Wall; John S Werner
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 4.799

Review 3.  Functional assessment of glaucoma: Uncovering progression.

Authors:  Rongrong Hu; Lyne Racette; Kelly S Chen; Chris A Johnson
Journal:  Surv Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-04-26       Impact factor: 6.048

4.  Comparison of visual field defects using matrix perimetry and standard achromatic perimetry.

Authors:  Avni Patel; Gadi Wollstein; Hiroshi Ishikawa; Joel S Schuman
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2006-11-21       Impact factor: 12.079

Review 5.  [Frequency-doubling technology : A new method for determining glaucomatous visual field defects].

Authors:  J Lamparter; A Schulze; E M Hoffmann
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 1.059

6.  Relationship between visual field loss and contrast threshold elevation in glaucoma.

Authors:  C M Tochel; J S Morton; J L Jay; J D Morrison
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2005-09-13       Impact factor: 2.209

7.  Comparison of matrix frequency-doubling technology perimetry and standard automated perimetry in monitoring the development of visual field defects for glaucoma suspect eyes.

Authors:  Rongrong Hu; Chenkun Wang; Lyne Racette
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-05-18       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Standard automated perimetry versus matrix frequency doubling technology perimetry in subjects with ocular hypertension and healthy control subjects.

Authors:  Julia Lamparter; Shakhsanam Aliyeva; Andreas Schulze; Manfred Berres; Norbert Pfeiffer; Esther M Hoffmann
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-02-28       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Assessing the GOANNA Visual Field Algorithm Using Artificial Scotoma Generation on Human Observers.

Authors:  Luke X Chong; Andrew Turpin; Allison M McKendrick
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2016-09-01       Impact factor: 3.283

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.