Literature DB >> 24713484

Effect of a variability-adjusted algorithm on the efficiency of perimetric testing.

Stuart K Gardiner1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Variability in perimetry increases with the amount of damage, making it difficult for testing algorithms to efficiently converge to the true sensitivity. This study describes a variability-adjusted algorithm (VAA), in which step size increases with variability.
METHODS: Contrasts were transformed to a new scale wherein the SD of frequency-of-seeing curves remains 1 unit for any sensitivity. A Bayesian thresholding procedure based on the existing Zippy Estimation by Sequential Testing (ZEST) algorithm was simulated on this new scale, and results converted back to decibels. The root-mean-squared (RMS) error from true sensitivity based on these simulations was compared against that achieved by ZEST using the same number of presentations. The procedure was repeated after limiting sensitivities to 15 dB or higher, the lower limit of reliable sensitivities using standard white-on-white perimetry in glaucoma, for both algorithms.
RESULTS: When the true sensitivity was 35 dB, with starting estimate also 35 dB, RMS errors of the algorithms were similar, ranging from 1.39 dB to 1.60 dB. When true sensitivity was instead 20 dB, with starting estimate 35 dB, VAA reduced the RMS error from 7.43 dB to 3.66 dB. Limiting sensitivities at 15 dB or higher reduced RMS errors, except when true sensitivity was near 15 dB.
CONCLUSIONS: VAA reduces perimetric variability without increasing test duration in cases in which the starting estimate of sensitivity is too high; for example, due to a small scotoma. Limiting the range of possible sensitivities at 15 dB or higher made algorithms more efficient, unless the true sensitivity was near this limit. This framework provides a new family of test algorithms that may benefit patients.

Entities:  

Keywords:  computer simulation; perimetry; testing algorithm

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24713484      PMCID: PMC4012942          DOI: 10.1167/iovs.14-14120

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


  20 in total

1.  Response variability in the visual field: comparison of optic neuritis, glaucoma, ocular hypertension, and normal eyes.

Authors:  D B Henson; S Chaudry; P H Artes; E B Faragher; A Ansons
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 4.799

2.  Development of efficient threshold strategies for frequency doubling technology perimetry using computer simulation.

Authors:  Andrew Turpin; Allison M McKendrick; Chris A Johnson; Algis J Vingrys
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 4.799

3.  Fatigue effects in automated perimetry.

Authors:  C A Johnson; C W Adams; R A Lewis
Journal:  Appl Opt       Date:  1988-03-15       Impact factor: 1.980

4.  Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from full threshold, ZEST, and SITA-like strategies, as determined by computer simulation.

Authors:  Andrew Turpin; Allison M McKendrick; Chris A Johnson; Algis J Vingrys
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 4.799

5.  A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry, SITA.

Authors:  B Bengtsson; J Olsson; A Heijl; H Rootzén
Journal:  Acta Ophthalmol Scand       Date:  1997-08

6.  Test-retest variability in glaucomatous visual fields.

Authors:  A Heijl; A Lindgren; G Lindgren
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  1989-08-15       Impact factor: 5.258

7.  Fatigue effects during a single session of automated static threshold perimetry.

Authors:  C Hudson; J M Wild; E C O'Neill
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 4.799

8.  Linking structure and function in glaucoma.

Authors:  R S Harwerth; J L Wheat; M J Fredette; D R Anderson
Journal:  Prog Retin Eye Res       Date:  2010-03-11       Impact factor: 21.198

9.  Threshold and variability properties of matrix frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma.

Authors:  Paul H Artes; Donna M Hutchison; Marcelo T Nicolela; Raymond P LeBlanc; Balwantray C Chauhan
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 4.799

Review 10.  Practical recommendations for measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma.

Authors:  B C Chauhan; D F Garway-Heath; F J Goñi; L Rossetti; B Bengtsson; A C Viswanathan; A Heijl
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2008-01-22       Impact factor: 4.638

View more
  7 in total

1.  Evaluating Visual Field Progression in Advanced Glaucoma Using Trend Analysis of Targeted Mean Total Deviation.

Authors:  Atsuya Miki; Tomoyuki Okazaki; Robert N Weinreb; Misa Morota; Aki Tanimura; Rumi Kawashima; Shinichi Usui; Kenji Matsushita; Kohji Nishida
Journal:  J Glaucoma       Date:  2022-04-01       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  Can Macula and Optic Nerve Head Parameters Detect Glaucoma Progression in Eyes with Advanced Circumpapillary Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Damage?

Authors:  Fabio Lavinsky; Mengfei Wu; Joel S Schuman; Katie A Lucy; Mengling Liu; Youngseok Song; Julia Fallon; Maria de Los Angeles Ramos Cadena; Hiroshi Ishikawa; Gadi Wollstein
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2018-06-19       Impact factor: 12.079

3.  Detecting Progression in Advanced Glaucoma: Are Optical Coherence Tomography Global Metrics Viable Measures?

Authors:  Abinaya Thenappan; Emmanouil Tsamis; Zane Z Zemborain; Sol La Bruna; Melvi Eguia; Devon Joiner; Carlos Gustavo De Moraes; Donald C Hood
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2021-05-01       Impact factor: 2.106

4.  Improving Spatial Resolution and Test Times of Visual Field Testing Using ARREST.

Authors:  Andrew Turpin; William H Morgan; Allison M McKendrick
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2018-10-31       Impact factor: 3.283

5.  Evidence for Structural and Functional Damage of the Inner Retina in Diabetes With No Diabetic Retinopathy.

Authors:  Giovanni Montesano; Giovanni Ometto; Bethany E Higgins; Radha Das; Katie W Graham; Usha Chakravarthy; Bernadette McGuiness; Ian S Young; Frank Kee; David M Wright; David P Crabb; Ruth E Hogg
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2021-03-01       Impact factor: 4.799

Review 6.  The Future of Imaging in Detecting Glaucoma Progression.

Authors:  Fabio Lavinsky; Gadi Wollstein; Jenna Tauber; Joel S Schuman
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 14.277

7.  Multidimensional Functional and Structural Evaluation Reveals Neuroretinal Impairment in Early Diabetic Retinopathy.

Authors:  Katherine A Joltikov; Vinicius M de Castro; Jose R Davila; Rohit Anand; Sami M Khan; Neil Farbman; Gregory R Jackson; Chris A Johnson; Thomas W Gardner
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2017-05-01       Impact factor: 4.799

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.