Literature DB >> 23258149

Diagnostic performance of visual field test using subsets of the 24-2 test pattern for early glaucomatous field loss.

Yanfang Wang1, David B Henson.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To explore the diagnostic performance of threshold visual field tests using subsets of the standard 24-2 test pattern in detecting early/moderate glaucomatous field loss.
METHODS: Normal (Brusini stage 0, n = 2344) and defective eyes (Brusini stage 2-3, n = 2222) from a database of visual field tests (6696 eyes/3586 patients, SITA standard 24-2 algorithm) were selected and resampled using a bootstrap method. The positive predictive values (PPVs) of each test location were calculated for the resampled datasets with a fail criteria of a single missed stimulus at a pattern deviation probability level of less than 0.01. Optimized test patterns started with the most frequent location of the maximum PPV in datasets. Eyes missing the location were removed and the PPV values of residual sample recalculated. The process was repeated until all defective eyes were detected. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were established for the PPV-optimized and five randomized patterns. Characteristics of visual field defects detected with subsets of optimized test pattern were established.
RESULTS: With the PPV-optimized pattern, 95% of the field defects were detected with 30 locations and all with 43 locations. Areas under the ROC curve were greatest for the optimized pattern. With each increment in the number of test locations, the Mean Deviation of additionally detected eyes became more positive while Pattern Standard Deviation became less positive (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Good diagnostic performance can be obtained with optimized subsets of the standard 24-2 test pattern that can provide substantial savings in test times.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23258149     DOI: 10.1167/iovs.12-10468

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci        ISSN: 0146-0404            Impact factor:   4.799


  7 in total

1.  Development of a Pediatric Visual Field Test.

Authors:  Marco A Miranda; David B Henson; Cecilia Fenerty; Susmito Biswas; Tariq Aslam
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2016-12-14       Impact factor: 3.283

2.  Validation of a Tablet as a Tangent Perimeter.

Authors:  Algis J Vingrys; Jessica K Healey; Sheryl Liew; Veera Saharinen; Michael Tran; William Wu; George Y X Kong
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2016-07-14       Impact factor: 3.283

3.  Diagnostic Ability and Repeatability of a New Supra-Threshold Glaucoma Screening Program in Standard Automated Perimetry.

Authors:  Natsumi Takahashi; Kazunori Hirasawa; Miki Hoshina; Masayuki Kasahara; Kazuhiro Matsumura; Nobuyuki Shoji
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2017-05-22       Impact factor: 3.283

4.  How Many Subjects are Needed for a Visual Field Normative Database? A Comparison of Ground Truth and Bootstrapped Statistics.

Authors:  Jack Phu; Bang V Bui; Michael Kalloniatis; Sieu K Khuu
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2018-03-02       Impact factor: 3.283

5.  Clinical utility of spectral analysis of intraocular pressure pulse wave.

Authors:  Magdalena Asejczyk-Widlicka; Patrycja Krzyżanowska-Berkowska; Małgorzata Kowalska; D Robert Iskander
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-03-12       Impact factor: 2.209

6.  Development of Visual Field Screening Procedures: A Case Study of the Octopus Perimeter.

Authors:  Andrew Turpin; Jonathan S Myers; Allison M McKendrick
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2016-05-09       Impact factor: 3.283

7.  Sequentially optimized reconstruction strategy: A meta-strategy for perimetry testing.

Authors:  Şerife Seda Kucur; Raphael Sznitman
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-10-13       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.