Literature DB >> 9445208

Long- and short-term variability of automated perimetry results in patients with optic neuritis and healthy subjects.

M Wall1, C A Johnson, K E Kutzko, R Nguyen, C Brito, J L Keltner.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To measure the short- and long-term variability of automated perimetry in patients with optic neuritis and normal subjects.
DESIGN: Prospective case-control design of patients with recovered optic neuritis with intraday and interday repetitions to obtain robust variability measurements. Entry criteria included a corrected pattern SD that was worse than the normal 5% probability level and a mean deviation worse than -3 dB but better than -20 dB. Five Humphrey 30-2 full threshold tests were administered during a 7-hour period (1 test every 2 hours) on the same day and at the same periods on 5 separate days.
SUBJECTS: Seventeen patients with recovered optic neuritis and 10 healthy subjects of similar age. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Short-term variability and long-term variability for global visual field data.
RESULTS: Patients with optic neuritis demonstrated variations in visual field sensitivity that were outside the entire range of variability for normal controls. These variations occurred for multiple tests performed on the same day at specific times and for tests performed at specific times on different days. There were no consistent patterns of sensitivity changes that could be attributed to time of day. The most dramatic fluctuations occurred in a patient whose visual fields varied from normal to a hemianopic defect from one week to another and from a partial quadrant loss to a hemianopic defect at different times on the same day. Seven of the patients with optic neuritis also demonstrated intermittent vertical step defects.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with resolved optic neuritis can have large variations in visual field results on different days and at different times on the same day. The variations affect both the severity and the pattern of visual field loss and do not appear to be consistent across patients. These data indicate that care must be taken when automated visual field results in patients with optic neuritis are interpreted. Distinguishing systematic changes in sensitivity from variability requires more than a comparison of the current visual field with the most recent previous visual field.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9445208     DOI: 10.1001/archopht.116.1.53

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0003-9950


  18 in total

1.  Measurement error of visual field tests in glaucoma.

Authors:  P G D Spry; C A Johnson; A M McKendrick; A Turpin
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 4.638

2.  Anatomic and functional correlation of frequency-doubling technology perimetry (FDTP) in multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  Harold Merle; Stéphane Olindo; Angélique Donnio; Raymond Richer; Didier Smadja; Philippe Cabre
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2011-06-03       Impact factor: 2.031

3.  Tracking changes over time in retinal nerve fiber layer and ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer thickness in multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  Divya Narayanan; Han Cheng; Karlie N Bonem; Roberto Saenz; Rosa A Tang; Laura J Frishman
Journal:  Mult Scler       Date:  2014-03-17       Impact factor: 6.312

4.  Test-retest reliability of the multifocal electroretinogram and humphrey visual fields in patients with retinitis pigmentosa.

Authors:  William Seiple; Colleen J Clemens; Vivienne C Greenstein; Ronald E Carr; Karen Holopigian
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 2.379

5.  Comparison of multifocal visual evoked potential, standard automated perimetry and optical coherence tomography in assessing visual pathway in multiple sclerosis patients.

Authors:  Michal Laron; Han Cheng; Bin Zhang; Jade S Schiffman; Rosa A Tang; Laura J Frishman
Journal:  Mult Scler       Date:  2010-03-05       Impact factor: 6.312

6.  Frequency doubling illusion VEPs and automated perimetry in multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  Rasa Ruseckaite; Teddy Maddess; Gytis Danta; Andrew Charles James
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2006-08-12       Impact factor: 2.379

7.  Reproducibility of multifocal visual evoked potential and traditional visual evoked potential in normal and multiple sclerosis eyes.

Authors:  Divya Narayanan; Han Cheng; Rosa A Tang; Laura J Frishman
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-10-29       Impact factor: 2.379

8.  A frequency-tagging electrophysiological method to identify central and peripheral visual field deficits.

Authors:  Noémie Hébert-Lalonde; Lionel Carmant; Dima Safi; Marie-Sylvie Roy; Maryse Lassonde; Dave Saint-Amour
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-05-10       Impact factor: 2.379

9.  Relationships of retinal structure and humphrey 24-2 visual field thresholds in patients with glaucoma.

Authors:  Hrvoje Bogunović; Young H Kwon; Adnan Rashid; Kyungmoo Lee; Douglas B Critser; Mona K Garvin; Milan Sonka; Michael D Abràmoff
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2014-12-09       Impact factor: 4.799

10.  Longitudinal Evaluation of Visual Function in Multiple Sclerosis.

Authors:  Divya Narayanan; Han Cheng; Rosa A Tang; Laura J Frishman
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 1.973

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.