PURPOSE: A new version of frequency doubling perimetry was compared to a former version in patients with glaucoma. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. METHOD: Thirty-two patients with glaucoma were examined twice sequentially in one eye with threshold c-20 of frequency doubling perimetry version 2.6. Within 3 months, the same eye was again examined twice sequentially, this time using the new version 3.0. Mean deviation, pattern standard deviation, short-term fluctuation, intraocular pressure at examination, and test duration were compared between versions. RESULTS: No significant difference was found in mean deviation, pattern standard deviation, intraocular pressure, or short-term fluctuation between versions. CONCLUSIONS: Version 3.0 took less time to perform the threshold test than did version 2.6. Version 3.0 of the frequency doubling perimetry program took less time to perform and showed similar values of visual field indexes when compared with version 2.6.
PURPOSE: A new version of frequency doubling perimetry was compared to a former version in patients with glaucoma. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. METHOD: Thirty-two patients with glaucoma were examined twice sequentially in one eye with threshold c-20 of frequency doubling perimetry version 2.6. Within 3 months, the same eye was again examined twice sequentially, this time using the new version 3.0. Mean deviation, pattern standard deviation, short-term fluctuation, intraocular pressure at examination, and test duration were compared between versions. RESULTS: No significant difference was found in mean deviation, pattern standard deviation, intraocular pressure, or short-term fluctuation between versions. CONCLUSIONS: Version 3.0 took less time to perform the threshold test than did version 2.6. Version 3.0 of the frequency doubling perimetry program took less time to perform and showed similar values of visual field indexes when compared with version 2.6.