Fiona J Rowe1, Henri Sueke, Sandra D Gawley. 1. Directorate of Orthoptics and Vision Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. rowef@liverpool.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: The purpose of the study was to evaluate patients' ease of understanding of Damato campimetry assessment and to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the results compared with Humphrey automated perimetry. METHODS: Patients underwent Humphrey perimetry and Damato campimetry on the same day. Patients were excluded if they were unable to undergo Humphrey perimetry. Results were graded as matched, partially matched and not matched with those of Humphrey perimetry. RESULTS:One hundred patients (197 eyes) were assessed: 62 women and 38 men with mean age of 62.8 (SD 15.98) years. It was not possible to plot Damato campimetry in 19 eyes (6.5%): 13 due to lack of understanding and six due to low vision. In total 178 eyes were tested with both methods. Results showed 94 eyes as true positives, 45 as true negatives, 22 as false negatives and 17 as false positives. Ninety-five eyes had matched visual field results, five eyes had partial matches and 78 eyes (36%) were not matched. The extent of agreement was 0.216 (95% CI 0.073 to 0.36) with kappa analysis. CONCLUSIONS: We found Damato campimetry to be a useful portable device to assess the visual field, with an optimal sensitivity of 81% and a specificity of 72% based on comparison with a Humphrey 24-2 programme. Of the patients studied, 6.5% were unable to do the test and 64% had matched or partially matched results from both assessments. Further study is required to compare complete results with a Humphrey 30-2 programme and also to study populations where patients do not have access to outpatient formal visual field assessments.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND/AIMS: The purpose of the study was to evaluate patients' ease of understanding of Damato campimetry assessment and to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the results compared with Humphrey automated perimetry. METHODS:Patients underwent Humphrey perimetry and Damato campimetry on the same day. Patients were excluded if they were unable to undergo Humphrey perimetry. Results were graded as matched, partially matched and not matched with those of Humphrey perimetry. RESULTS: One hundred patients (197 eyes) were assessed: 62 women and 38 men with mean age of 62.8 (SD 15.98) years. It was not possible to plot Damato campimetry in 19 eyes (6.5%): 13 due to lack of understanding and six due to low vision. In total 178 eyes were tested with both methods. Results showed 94 eyes as true positives, 45 as true negatives, 22 as false negatives and 17 as false positives. Ninety-five eyes had matched visual field results, five eyes had partial matches and 78 eyes (36%) were not matched. The extent of agreement was 0.216 (95% CI 0.073 to 0.36) with kappa analysis. CONCLUSIONS: We found Damato campimetry to be a useful portable device to assess the visual field, with an optimal sensitivity of 81% and a specificity of 72% based on comparison with a Humphrey 24-2 programme. Of the patients studied, 6.5% were unable to do the test and 64% had matched or partially matched results from both assessments. Further study is required to compare complete results with a Humphrey 30-2 programme and also to study populations where patients do not have access to outpatient formal visual field assessments.