PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic results of four perimetric tests and to identify useful parameters from each for determining abnormality. METHODS: One hundred eleven eyes with glaucomatous optic neuropathy (GON), 31 with progressive optic neuropathy (PGON) 53 with ocular hypertension, and 51 with no disease were included (N = 246). Visual field results were not used to classify the eyes. Short-wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP), frequency-doubling technology perimetry (FDT), high-pass resolution perimetry (HPRP), and standard automated perimetry (SAP) were performed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to compute the areas under the curves (AUC) and sensitivity levels at given specificities for a variety of abnormality criteria. The agreement among tests for abnormality, location, and extent of visual field deficit were assessed. RESULTS: AUC analysis: When the normal group was compared with the GON group, the FDT pattern SD (PSD) area was larger than the HPRP PSD (P = 0.020), and the FDT area of total deviation (TD) <5% was larger than the HPRP mean deviation (MD; P = 0.004). When the normal group was compared with the PGON group, the FDT area of pattern deviation (PD) <5% was larger than the SWAP PSD (P = 0.020). A difference from previous work was that AUCs for PSD or the best SAP were not significantly poorer than those in the function-specific tests. At set specificities, FDT yielded higher sensitivities than all other tests for all parameters. The agreement among tests for abnormality was fair to moderate (kappa = 247-0.563). When loss was present on more than one test, the quadrant of the visual field affected was the same in 95% (79/83) of eyes. The number of eyes identified and number of abnormal quadrants increased across groups with increasing certainty of glaucoma. CONCLUSIONS: At equal specificity, no single perimetric test was always affected, whereas others remained normal. Several parameters at suggested criterion values provided good sensitivity and specificity. FDT showed the highest sensitivity overall, with SAP performing better than in prior reports. Of note, the same area of the retina was identified as damaged in all tests.
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic results of four perimetric tests and to identify useful parameters from each for determining abnormality. METHODS: One hundred eleven eyes with glaucomatous optic neuropathy (GON), 31 with progressive optic neuropathy (PGON) 53 with ocular hypertension, and 51 with no disease were included (N = 246). Visual field results were not used to classify the eyes. Short-wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP), frequency-doubling technology perimetry (FDT), high-pass resolution perimetry (HPRP), and standard automated perimetry (SAP) were performed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to compute the areas under the curves (AUC) and sensitivity levels at given specificities for a variety of abnormality criteria. The agreement among tests for abnormality, location, and extent of visual field deficit were assessed. RESULTS: AUC analysis: When the normal group was compared with the GON group, the FDT pattern SD (PSD) area was larger than the HPRP PSD (P = 0.020), and the FDT area of total deviation (TD) <5% was larger than the HPRP mean deviation (MD; P = 0.004). When the normal group was compared with the PGON group, the FDT area of pattern deviation (PD) <5% was larger than the SWAP PSD (P = 0.020). A difference from previous work was that AUCs for PSD or the best SAP were not significantly poorer than those in the function-specific tests. At set specificities, FDT yielded higher sensitivities than all other tests for all parameters. The agreement among tests for abnormality was fair to moderate (kappa = 247-0.563). When loss was present on more than one test, the quadrant of the visual field affected was the same in 95% (79/83) of eyes. The number of eyes identified and number of abnormal quadrants increased across groups with increasing certainty of glaucoma. CONCLUSIONS: At equal specificity, no single perimetric test was always affected, whereas others remained normal. Several parameters at suggested criterion values provided good sensitivity and specificity. FDT showed the highest sensitivity overall, with SAP performing better than in prior reports. Of note, the same area of the retina was identified as damaged in all tests.
Authors: Ali Tafreshi; Lyne Racette; Robert N Weinreb; Pamela A Sample; Linda M Zangwill; Felipe A Medeiros; Christopher Bowd Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Patricia I C Manalastas; Linda M Zangwill; Fabio B Daga; Mark A Christopher; Luke J Saunders; Takuhei Shoji; Tadamichi Akagi; Rafaella C Penteado; Adeleh Yarmohammadi; Min H Suh; Felipe A Medeiros; Robert N Weinreb Journal: J Glaucoma Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Andrew J Tatham; Erwin R Boer; Peter N Rosen; Mauro Della Penna; Daniel Meira-Freitas; Robert N Weinreb; Linda M Zangwill; Felipe A Medeiros Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2014-07-25 Impact factor: 5.258
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
Authors: Patricia Isabel C Manalastas; Akram Belghith; Robert N Weinreb; Jost B Jonas; Min Hee Suh; Adeleh Yarmohammadi; Felipe A Medeiros; Christopher A Girkin; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Linda M Zangwill Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2018-05-09 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Minna Ng; Lyne Racette; John P Pascual; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Christopher A Girkin; Sarah L Lovell; Linda M Zangwill; Robert N Weinreb; Pamela A Sample Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2008-12-13 Impact factor: 4.799