Annette Franziska Luithardt1, Christoph Meisner2, Matthias Monhart3, Elke Krapp1, Andrea Mast1, Ulrich Schiefer4. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Tübingen, Germany. 2. Institute of Clinical Epidemiology and Applied Biometry, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. 3. Formerly Haag-Streit Inc., Köniz, Switzerland Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc., Feldbach, Switzerland. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Tübingen, Germany Research Institute for Ophthalmology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany Faculty of Optics & Mechatronics, Competence Center "Vision Research", Study course "Ophthalmic Optics & Audiology", University of Applied Sciences, Aalen, Germany.
Abstract
AIMS: To validate the EyeSuite version of German Adaptive Threshold Estimation (GATE), a new thresholding algorithm for automated static perimetry. METHODS: Specification of agreement and its clinical evaluation as validation criteria. Comparison of local differential luminance sensitivity (DLS) and test time values between the prototype version of GATE (GATEp) and a clinical trial version, implemented in EyeSuite (GATEe), by means of modified Bland-Altman plots. All examinations were performed on the Octopus 900 perimeter (Haag-Streit Inc., Köniz, Switzerland). Visually impaired patients (anterior ischaemic optic neuropathy [n=3], glaucomatous optic neuropathy [n=15], (post-)chiasmal visual pathway lesion [n=6], retinitis pigmentosa [n=6]) were either tested with grid 30A (30° excentricity, 83 test locations) or grid 84NO (90° excentricity, 109 test locations, patients with RP only). RESULTS: The comparison of local DLS values showed good-to-acceptable agreement between GATEp and GATEe (bias <2 dB, limits of agreement [LOA] <5 dB) and very good repeatability for GATEp (bias <0.5 dB, LOA<3 dB). Median test times for GATEp and GATEe were 7.8 and 8.8 min for the 30° grid and 6.7 and 7.8 min for the 90° grid. CONCLUSIONS: GATEp and GATE, implemented in the commercially available EyeSuite software package (GATEe), show good agreement regarding local differential luminance sensitivity. GATEe can thus be also recommended for clinical practice. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT01265628. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
AIMS: To validate the EyeSuite version of German Adaptive Threshold Estimation (GATE), a new thresholding algorithm for automated static perimetry. METHODS: Specification of agreement and its clinical evaluation as validation criteria. Comparison of local differential luminance sensitivity (DLS) and test time values between the prototype version of GATE (GATEp) and a clinical trial version, implemented in EyeSuite (GATEe), by means of modified Bland-Altman plots. All examinations were performed on the Octopus 900 perimeter (Haag-Streit Inc., Köniz, Switzerland). Visually impairedpatients (anterior ischaemic optic neuropathy [n=3], glaucomatous optic neuropathy [n=15], (post-)chiasmal visual pathway lesion [n=6], retinitis pigmentosa [n=6]) were either tested with grid 30A (30° excentricity, 83 test locations) or grid 84NO (90° excentricity, 109 test locations, patients with RP only). RESULTS: The comparison of local DLS values showed good-to-acceptable agreement between GATEp and GATEe (bias <2 dB, limits of agreement [LOA] <5 dB) and very good repeatability for GATEp (bias <0.5 dB, LOA<3 dB). Median test times for GATEp and GATEe were 7.8 and 8.8 min for the 30° grid and 6.7 and 7.8 min for the 90° grid. CONCLUSIONS: GATEp and GATE, implemented in the commercially available EyeSuite software package (GATEe), show good agreement regarding local differential luminance sensitivity. GATEe can thus be also recommended for clinical practice. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT01265628. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Diagnostic tests/Investigation; Field of vision; Glaucoma; Visual pathway
Authors: Erin A Boese; Nieraj Jain; Yali Jia; Catie L Schlechter; Cary O Harding; Simon S Gao; Rachel C Patel; David Huang; Richard G Weleber; Melanie B Gillingham; Mark E Pennesi Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Thomas M W Buckley; Amandeep Singh Josan; Laura J Taylor; Jasleen K Jolly; Jasmina Cehajic-Kapetanovic; Robert E MacLaren Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2022-05-02 Impact factor: 3.048
Authors: Jack Phu; Sieu K Khuu; Michael Yapp; Nagi Assaad; Michael P Hennessy; Michael Kalloniatis Journal: Clin Exp Optom Date: 2017-06-22 Impact factor: 2.742
Authors: James J L Tee; Yesa Yang; Angelos Kalitzeos; Andrew Webster; James Bainbridge; Richard G Weleber; Michel Michaelides Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Neruban Kumaran; Michalis Georgiou; James W B Bainbridge; Mette Bertelsen; Michael Larsen; Fiona Blanco-Kelly; Carmen Ayuso; Hoai Viet Tran; Francis L Munier; Angelos Kalitzeos; Michel Michaelides Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2020-04-09 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Neruban Kumaran; Gary S Rubin; Angelos Kalitzeos; Kaoru Fujinami; James W B Bainbridge; Richard G Weleber; Michel Michaelides Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2018-07-02 Impact factor: 4.799