Literature DB >> 33436922

A case control study examining the feasibility of using eye tracking perimetry to differentiate patients with glaucoma from healthy controls.

Andrew J Tatham1,2, Ian C Murray3, Alice D McTrusty3,4, Lorraine A Cameron3,4, Antonios Perperidis3,5, Harry M Brash3, Brian W Fleck3,6,7, Robert A Minns3,7.   

Abstract

To explore the feasibility of using Saccadic Vector Optokinetic Perimetry (SVOP) to differentiate glaucomatous and healthy eyes. A prospective case-control study was performed using a convenience sample recruited from a single university glaucoma clinic and a group of healthy controls. SVOP and standard automated perimetry (SAP) was performed with testing order randomised. The reference standard was a diagnosis of glaucoma based a comprehensive ophthalmic examination and abnormality on standard automated perimetry (SAP). The index test was SVOP. 31 patients with glaucoma and 24 healthy subjects were included. Mean SAP mean deviation (MD) in those with glaucoma was - 8.7 ± 7.4 dB, with mean SAP and SVOP sensitivities of 23.3 ± 0.9 dB and 22.1 ± 4.3 dB respectively. Participants with glaucoma were significantly older. On average, SAP sensitivity was 1.2 ± 1.4 dB higher than SVOP (95% limits of agreement = - 1.6 to 4.0 dB). SVOP sensitivity had good ability to differentiate healthy and glaucomatous eyes with a 95% CI for area under the curve (AUC) of 0.84 to 0.96, similar to the performance of SAP sensitivity (95% CI 0.86 to 0.97, P = 0.60). For 80% specificity, SVOP had a 95% CI sensitivity of 75.7% to 94.8% compared to 77.8% to 96.0% for SAP. SVOP took considerably longer to perform (514 ± 54 s compared to 267 ± 76 s for SAP). Eye tracking perimetry may be useful for detection of glaucoma but further studies are needed to evaluate SVOP within its intended sphere of use, using an appropriate design and independent reference standard.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 33436922      PMCID: PMC7804427          DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-80401-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Rep        ISSN: 2045-2322            Impact factor:   4.379


  26 in total

1.  False-negative responses in glaucoma perimetry: indicators of patient performance or test reliability?

Authors: 
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 5.258

2.  A statistical approach to the evaluation of covariate effects on the receiver operating characteristic curves of diagnostic tests in glaucoma.

Authors:  Felipe A Medeiros; Pamela A Sample; Linda M Zangwill; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Christopher A Girkin; Robert N Weinreb
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 4.799

Review 3.  Confidence in Altman-Bland plots: a critical review of the method of differences.

Authors:  John Ludbrook
Journal:  Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol       Date:  2009-08-28       Impact factor: 2.557

4.  Trends in use of ancillary glaucoma tests for patients with open-angle glaucoma from 2001 to 2009.

Authors:  Joshua D Stein; Nidhi Talwar; Alejandra M Laverne; Bin Nan; Paul R Lichter
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2012-01-03       Impact factor: 12.079

5.  The Frequency of Optical Coherence Tomography Testing in Glaucoma at a Single Academic Medical Center.

Authors:  Joseph F Griffith; Jeffrey L Goldberg
Journal:  J Glaucoma       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 2.503

6.  Clinical applicability of the Saccadic Vector Optokinetic Perimeter in children with and without visual impairment.

Authors:  Samantha K Simkin; Stuti L Misra; Apurva Kasture; Charles Nj McGhee; Shuan Dai
Journal:  Clin Exp Optom       Date:  2018-06-25       Impact factor: 2.742

7.  Validity and Repeatability of Saccadic Response Times Across the Visual Field in Eye Movement Perimetry.

Authors:  Johan J M Pel; Michel C M van Beijsterveld; Gijs Thepass; Johannes van der Steen
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2013-11-13       Impact factor: 3.283

8.  A Comparison of Perimetric Results from a Tablet Perimeter and Humphrey Field Analyzer in Glaucoma Patients.

Authors:  Yu Xiang George Kong; Mingguang He; Jonathan G Crowston; Algis J Vingrys
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2016-11-03       Impact factor: 3.283

9.  Testing of visual field with virtual reality goggles in manual and visual grasp modes.

Authors:  Dariusz Wroblewski; Brian A Francis; Alfredo Sadun; Ghazal Vakili; Vikas Chopra
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-06-23       Impact factor: 3.411

10.  Comparison of Threshold Saccadic Vector Optokinetic Perimetry (SVOP) and Standard Automated Perimetry (SAP) in Glaucoma. Part II: Patterns of Visual Field Loss and Acceptability.

Authors:  Alice D McTrusty; Lorraine A Cameron; Antonios Perperidis; Harry M Brash; Andrew J Tatham; Pankaj K Agarwal; Ian C Murray; Brian W Fleck; Robert A Minns
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2017-09-06       Impact factor: 3.283

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.