Literature DB >> 12714404

Agreement between frequency doubling perimetry and static perimetry in eyes with high tension glaucoma and normal tension glaucoma.

S Kogure1, Y Toda, D Crabb, K Kashiwagi, F W Fitzke, S Tsukahara.   

Abstract

AIMS: To investigate the agreement in results between frequency doubling technology (FDT) and the conventional automated static perimeter in eyes with normal tension glaucoma (NTG) and high tension glaucoma (HTG).
METHODS: 72 eyes of 36 patients, who had two or more experiences with the Humphrey field analyser (HFA) program C30-2, were examined with the screening C-20-1 program of FDT. The result of FDT at each of the 17 stimulus points was graded as one of four categories. 58 out of 76 test points of HFA were assigned to one of the 17 clusters corresponding to FDT test points. Each cluster was represented as the lowest (scotoma of HFA) or the highest (threshold of HFA) probability symbol of total deviation (TD) of the HFA test points included in the cluster. The agreement between scotoma/threshold of HFA and FDT results was evaluated for NTG and HTG.
RESULTS: In a total of 65 eyes, the Spearman coefficients between the FDT and HFA (threshold/scotoma of HFA) were 0.599 and 0.515 (p<0.0001), respectively. In the HFA mean deviation matched 20 HTG eyes and 20 NTG eyes, the number of points with abnormal FDT results were 102 and 62 in eyes with HTG and NTG, respectively. The eyes with HTG had more abnormal FDT results than NTG eyes (p=0.0014, Mann-Whitney U test). The kappa coefficient between FDT and threshold of HFA in eyes with HTG and NTG was 0.288 and 0.520, respectively, and the agreement between FDT and scotoma of HFA was 0.480 and 0.439, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The best agreement of the results of FDT and HFA was observed in eyes with NTG using threshold of HFA. The eyes with HTG showed lower agreement with more abnormal points in FDT results, which suggests enough sensitivity of FDT in eyes with NTG, and higher sensitivity of FDT in eyes with HTG.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12714404      PMCID: PMC1771682          DOI: 10.1136/bjo.87.5.604

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0007-1161            Impact factor:   4.638


  24 in total

1.  Frequency doubling technology perimetry for detection of glaucomatous visual field loss.

Authors:  K E Cello; J M Nelson-Quigg; C A Johnson
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 5.258

Review 2.  Frequency doubling technology perimetry for the detection of glaucomatous visual field loss.

Authors:  W L Alward
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 5.258

3.  Effect of decreased retinal illumination on frequency doubling technology.

Authors:  S Kogure; W L Membrey; F W Fitzke; S Tsukahara
Journal:  Jpn J Ophthalmol       Date:  2000 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.447

4.  Comparison of visual field defects in normal-tension glaucoma and high-tension glaucoma.

Authors:  J Caprioli; M Sears; G L Spaeth
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  1986-09-15       Impact factor: 5.258

5.  Comparison of visual field defects in the low-tension glaucomas with those in the high-tension glaucomas.

Authors:  C D Phelps; S S Hayreh; P R Montague
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  1984-12-15       Impact factor: 5.258

6.  Nonlinear visual responses to flickering sinusoidal gratings.

Authors:  D H Kelly
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am       Date:  1981-09

7.  Comparison of detectability of visual field abnormality by frequency doubling technology in primary open-angle glaucoma and normal-tension glaucoma.

Authors:  N Horikoshi; M Osako; Y Tamura; T Okano; M Usui
Journal:  Jpn J Ophthalmol       Date:  2001 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.447

8.  A comparative study of visual field defects seen in patients with low-tension glaucoma and chronic simple glaucoma.

Authors:  R A Hitchings; S A Anderton
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  1983-12       Impact factor: 4.638

9.  Comparison of visual field defects in the low-tension glaucomas with those in the high-tension glaucomas.

Authors:  J Caprioli; G L Spaeth
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  1984-06       Impact factor: 5.258

10.  Comparison of visual field defects in normal-tension glaucoma and high-tension glaucoma.

Authors:  D King; S M Drance; G Douglas; M Schulzer; K Wijsman
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  1986-02-15       Impact factor: 5.258

View more
  6 in total

1.  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

2.  Risk factors for glaucoma are reflected in abnormal responses to frequency-doubling technology screening in both normal and glaucoma eyes.

Authors:  Aiko Iwase; Tae Tsutsumi; Makoto Fujii; Shoichi Sawaguchi; Makoto Araie
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-07-09       Impact factor: 4.996

3.  Prediction of future scotoma on conventional automated static perimetry using frequency doubling technology perimetry.

Authors:  S Kogure; Y Toda; S Tsukahara
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 4.638

4.  Five year incidence of visual field loss in adult Chinese. The Beijing Eye Study.

Authors:  Ya Xing Wang; Liang Xu; Xiu Ying Sun; Yang Zou; Hai Tao Zhang; Jost B Jonas
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-05-18       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Comparison of Humphrey MATRIX and Swedish interactive threshold algorithm standard strategy in detecting early glaucomatous visual field loss.

Authors:  Raju Prema; Ronnie George; Arvind Hemamalini; Ramesh Sathyamangalam Ve; Mani Baskaran; Lingam Vijaya
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2009 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.848

6.  Applications of Isolated-Check Visual Evoked Potential in Early Stage of Open-Angle Glaucoma Patients.

Authors:  Xiang Fan; Ling-Ling Wu; Xia Di; Tong Ding; Ai-Hua Ding
Journal:  Chin Med J (Engl)       Date:  2018-10-20       Impact factor: 2.628

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.