PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to establish the correlation between visual filed loss as shown by second-generation Frequency Doubling Technology (Humphrey Matrix) and Standard Automated Perimetry (Humphrey Field Analyser) in patients with glaucoma. Also, compared were the test duration and reliability. METHODS: Forty right eyes from glaucoma patients from a private ophthalmology practice were included in this prospective study. All participants had tests within an 8-month period. Pattern deviation plots and mean deviation were compared to establish the correlation between the two perimetry tests. Overall correlation and correlation between hemifields, quadrants and individual test locations were assessed. RESULTS: Humphrey Field Analyser tests were slightly more reliable (37/40 vs. 34/40 for Matrix)) but overall of longer duration. There was good correlation (0.69) between mean deviations. Superior hemifields and superonasal quadrants had the highest correlation (0.88 [95% CI 0.79, 0.94]). Correlation between individual points was independent of distance from the macula. CONCLUSION: Generally, the Matrix and Humphrey Field Analyser perimetry correlate well; however, each machine utilizes a different method of analysing data and thus the direct comparison should be made with caution.
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to establish the correlation between visual filed loss as shown by second-generation Frequency Doubling Technology (Humphrey Matrix) and Standard Automated Perimetry (Humphrey Field Analyser) in patients with glaucoma. Also, compared were the test duration and reliability. METHODS: Forty right eyes from glaucomapatients from a private ophthalmology practice were included in this prospective study. All participants had tests within an 8-month period. Pattern deviation plots and mean deviation were compared to establish the correlation between the two perimetry tests. Overall correlation and correlation between hemifields, quadrants and individual test locations were assessed. RESULTS: Humphrey Field Analyser tests were slightly more reliable (37/40 vs. 34/40 for Matrix)) but overall of longer duration. There was good correlation (0.69) between mean deviations. Superior hemifields and superonasal quadrants had the highest correlation (0.88 [95% CI 0.79, 0.94]). Correlation between individual points was independent of distance from the macula. CONCLUSION: Generally, the Matrix and Humphrey Field Analyser perimetry correlate well; however, each machine utilizes a different method of analysing data and thus the direct comparison should be made with caution.
Authors: Sibel Kocabeyoglu; Salih Uzun; Mehmet Cem Mocan; Banu Bozkurt; Murat Irkec; Mehmet Orhan Journal: Indian J Ophthalmol Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 1.848