Literature DB >> 17178091

Frequency-doubling perimetry: comparison with standard automated perimetry to detect glaucoma.

Narakorn Leeprechanon1, Annette Giangiacomo, Hector Fontana, Douglas Hoffman, Joseph Caprioli.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare second generation frequency-doubling perimetry (FDP) with standard automated perimetry (SAP) to detect glaucomatous visual field abnormalities.
DESIGN: Prospective, cross-sectional, controlled observational study.
METHODS: Fifty eyes of 50 patients with glaucoma with confirmed SAP visual field abnormalities and 42 eyes from 42 normal control subjects were studied. Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA) standard 24-2 SAP and FDP visual fields were performed. The correlation of global indices and the number of defects on total deviation (TD) and pattern deviation (PD) plots were compared. The spatial concordance of FDP and SAP defect locations was determined.
RESULTS: In patients with glaucoma, significant correlations of mean deviation (MD) and pattern standard deviation (PSD) were found between SAP and FDP (P < .001 for MD and P < .001 for PSD), but not in the normal group. FDP had significantly greater defect scores than SAP on total deviation and PD plots in the glaucoma group (P = .028 and P = .01, respectively). In comparison with SAP, sensitivity and specificity of FDP were 92% and 98% with glaucoma hemifield test criteria and 98% and 93% with PSD <5% criteria, respectively. Similarly high diagnostic precision was found with MD and PSD (at 95% specificity; MD and PSD sensitivity was 82% and 90%, respectively). The location of defects within 12 hemifield clusters found with FDP agreed moderately well with those detected with SAP (kappa = .48).
CONCLUSIONS: FDP and SAP perform similarly in their ability to detect visual field defects in early to moderate glaucoma. Larger and deeper defects detected with FDP suggests the possibility of earlier detection at high specificity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17178091     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2006.10.033

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


  15 in total

1.  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

2.  Receiver-operating characteristic analysis of multifocal VEPs to diagnose and quantify glaucomatous functional damage.

Authors:  Makoto Nakamura; Kumiko Ishikawa; Takayuki Nagai; Akira Negi
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2011-08-19       Impact factor: 2.379

3.  Comparative Analysis of Visual Field Plotting by Octopus Interzeag 1-2-3, Humphrey Field Analyser II and Frequency Doubling Perimetry in Glaucoma Patients in South Indian Population.

Authors:  A R Rajalakshmi; Elangovan Suma; D Ranjit Prabhu
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2015-07-01

4.  Structural and Functional Evaluations for the Early Detection of Glaucoma.

Authors:  Katie A Lucy; Gadi Wollstein
Journal:  Expert Rev Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-09-14

5.  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

6.  Glaucoma diagnostic performance of humphrey matrix and standard automated perimetry.

Authors:  Yoon Pyo Nam; Seong Bae Park; Sung Yong Kang; Kyung Rim Sung; Michael S Kook
Journal:  Jpn J Ophthalmol       Date:  2009-10-22       Impact factor: 2.447

Review 7.  [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

8.  Diagnostic accuracy of the Matrix 24-2 and original N-30 frequency-doubling technology tests compared with standard automated perimetry.

Authors:  Lyne Racette; Felipe A Medeiros; Linda M Zangwill; Diana Ng; Robert N Weinreb; Pamela A Sample
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 4.799

9.  Chromatic-achromatic perimetry in four clinic cases: Glaucoma and diabetes.

Authors:  Inmaculada Cabezos; Maria Jos Luque; Dolores de Fez; Vicenta Moncho; Vicente Camps
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 1.848

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.