BACKGROUND: A hospital-based study was conducted in 2007 in Oman to determine the validity of frequency doubling perimetry (FDP). The authors have compared the ability of FDP to detect glaucoma among patients with and without diabetes. METHODS: This was a validity study of the screening procedure. An ophthalmologist and an optometrist examined Omani persons >30 years of age with and without diabetes. They determined glaucomatous field changes by using FDP. The glaucoma specialist labeled the eye and the person as suffering from glaucoma if two criteria were present: (1) optic cup disc and other retinal changes suggestive of glaucoma and (2) field changes on automated perimeter suggestive of glaucoma. Ocular pressure was measured with a Tono-Pen (Medtronic Ophthalmics, Jacksonville, FL). We calculated the validity of glaucoma screening by FDP among persons both with diabetes and without diabetes. RESULTS: We examined 111 eyes of 56 Omani patients (55 eyes of 28 patients with diabetes and 56 eyes of 28 persons without diabetes). Two persons had a history of glaucoma in both eyes. Glaucoma screening by FDP detected five eyes (two eyes of patients with diabetes and three eyes of persons without diabetes) with glaucoma. The specificity of glaucoma screening among those with and without diabetes was 97.4% and 97.3%, respectively. The sensitivity was 6% and 11%, respectively, in these two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Validity of glaucoma screening by FDP is not different among those with and without diabetes. In countries with high rates of diabetes, FDP could be used as a first-level screening tool for glaucoma.
BACKGROUND: A hospital-based study was conducted in 2007 in Oman to determine the validity of frequency doubling perimetry (FDP). The authors have compared the ability of FDP to detect glaucoma among patients with and without diabetes. METHODS: This was a validity study of the screening procedure. An ophthalmologist and an optometrist examined Omani persons >30 years of age with and without diabetes. They determined glaucomatous field changes by using FDP. The glaucoma specialist labeled the eye and the person as suffering from glaucoma if two criteria were present: (1) optic cup disc and other retinal changes suggestive of glaucoma and (2) field changes on automated perimeter suggestive of glaucoma. Ocular pressure was measured with a Tono-Pen (Medtronic Ophthalmics, Jacksonville, FL). We calculated the validity of glaucoma screening by FDP among persons both with diabetes and without diabetes. RESULTS: We examined 111 eyes of 56 Omani patients (55 eyes of 28 patients with diabetes and 56 eyes of 28 persons without diabetes). Two persons had a history of glaucoma in both eyes. Glaucoma screening by FDP detected five eyes (two eyes of patients with diabetes and three eyes of persons without diabetes) with glaucoma. The specificity of glaucoma screening among those with and without diabetes was 97.4% and 97.3%, respectively. The sensitivity was 6% and 11%, respectively, in these two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Validity of glaucoma screening by FDP is not different among those with and without diabetes. In countries with high rates of diabetes, FDP could be used as a first-level screening tool for glaucoma.
Authors: Humoud Al-Otaibi; Mohammed D Al-Otaibi; Rajiv Khandekar; Ches Souru; Abdulelah A Al-Abdullah; Hassan Al-Dhibi; Donald U Stone; Igor Kozak Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2017-05-16 Impact factor: 3.283