Literature DB >> 9924324

Simulating binocular visual field status in glaucoma.

D P Crabb1, A C Viswanathan, A I McNaught, D Poinoosawmy, F W Fitzke, R A Hitchings.   

Abstract

AIMS: To simulate the central binocular visual field using results from merged left and right monocular Humphrey fields. To assess the agreement between the simulation and the binocular Humphrey Esterman visual field test (EVFT).
METHOD: 59 consecutive patients with bilateral glaucoma each recorded Humphrey 24-2 fields for both eyes and binocular EVFT on the same visit. EVFT results were used to identify patients exhibiting at least one defect (< 10 dB) within the central 20 degrees of the binocular field. This criterion is relevant to a patient's legal fitness to drive in the UK. Individual sensitivity values from monocular fields are merged to generate a simulated central binocular field. Results are displayed as a grey scale and as symbols representing defects at the < 10 dB level. Agreement between patients failing the criterion using the simulation and the EVFT was evaluated.
RESULTS: Substantial agreement was observed between the methods in classifying patients with at least one defect (< 10 dB) within the central binocular field (kappa 0.81; SE 0.09). Patients failing this criterion using the EVFT results were identified by the binocular simulation with high levels of sensitivity (100%) and specificity (86%).
CONCLUSIONS: Excellent agreement exists between the simulated binocular results and EVFT in classifying glaucomatous patients with central binocular defects. A rapid estimate of a patient's central binocular field and visual functional capacity can be ascertained without extra perimetric examination.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9924324      PMCID: PMC1722423          DOI: 10.1136/bjo.82.11.1236

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0007-1161            Impact factor:   4.638


  16 in total

1.  Regional variations in binocular summation across the visual field.

Authors:  J M Wood; M J Collins; A Carkeet
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  1992-01       Impact factor: 3.117

2.  Retinal ganglion cell density and cortical magnification factor in the primate.

Authors:  H Wässle; U Grünert; J Röhrenbeck; B B Boycott
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 1.886

3.  Glaucoma Hemifield Test. Automated visual field evaluation.

Authors:  P Asman; A Heijl
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1992-06

4.  Reliability indexes of automated perimetric tests.

Authors:  J Katz; A Sommer
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1988-09

Review 5.  Automated perimetry in glaucoma--room for improvement?

Authors:  C O'Brien; J M Wild
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 4.638

6.  Functional scoring of the binocular field.

Authors:  B Esterman
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  1982-11       Impact factor: 12.079

7.  Image processing of computerised visual field data.

Authors:  F W Fitzke; D P Crabb; A I McNaught; D F Edgar; R A Hitchings
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 4.638

8.  Repeatability of the Glaucoma Hemifield Test in automated perimetry.

Authors:  J Katz; H A Quigley; A Sommer
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 4.799

9.  Esterman disability rating in severe glaucoma.

Authors:  R P Mills; S M Drance
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  1986-03       Impact factor: 12.079

10.  Assessing the utility of reliability indices for automated visual fields. Testing ocular hypertensives.

Authors:  M Bickler-Bluth; G L Trick; A E Kolker; D G Cooper
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 12.079

View more
  32 in total

1.  The relationship between better-eye and integrated visual field mean deviation and visual disability.

Authors:  Karun S Arora; Michael V Boland; David S Friedman; Joan L Jefferys; Sheila K West; Pradeep Y Ramulu
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2013-08-30       Impact factor: 12.079

2.  Binocular Measures of Visual Acuity and Visual Field versus Binocular Approximations.

Authors:  David C Musch; Leslie M Niziol; Brenda W Gillespie; Paul R Lichter; Nancy K Janz
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2017-04-10       Impact factor: 12.079

3.  Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence: Centrally Mediated Preservation of Binocular Visual Field in Glaucoma is Unlikely.

Authors:  Jonathan Denniss; Paul H Artes
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2015-01-22       Impact factor: 3.283

4.  Toward Improving the Mobility of Patients with Peripheral Visual Field Defects with Novel Digital Spectacles.

Authors:  Ahmed M Sayed; Rashed Kashem; Mostafa Abdel-Mottaleb; Vatookarn Roongpoovapatr; Taher K Eleiwa; Mohamed Abdel-Mottaleb; Richard K Parrish; Mohamed Abou Shousha
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-10-10       Impact factor: 5.258

5.  Integrated visual fields: a new approach to measuring the binocular field of view and visual disability.

Authors:  David P Crabb; Ananth C Viswanathan
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2004-09-10       Impact factor: 3.117

6.  Glaucoma patients' assessment of their visual function and quality of life.

Authors:  H D Jampel
Journal:  Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc       Date:  2001

7.  Areas of the visual field important during reading in patients with glaucoma.

Authors:  Robyn Burton; Luke J Saunders; David P Crabb
Journal:  Jpn J Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-12-26       Impact factor: 2.447

8.  MRI Study of the Posterior Visual Pathways in Primary Open Angle Glaucoma.

Authors:  Wei Zhou; Eric R Muir; Steven Chalfin; Kundandeep S Nagi; Timothy Q Duong
Journal:  J Glaucoma       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 2.503

9.  Five-year forecasts of the Visual Field Index (VFI) with binocular and monocular visual fields.

Authors:  Ryo Asaoka; Richard A Russell; Rizwan Malik; David F Garway-Heath; David P Crabb
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-12-07       Impact factor: 3.117

10.  A practical approach to measuring the visual field component of fitness to drive.

Authors:  D P Crabb; F W Fitzke; R A Hitchings; A C Viswanathan
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 4.638

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.