HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bengtsson, B. Articles by Heijl, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bengtsson, B. Articles by Heijl, A.

False-Negative Responses in Glaucoma Perimetry: Indicators of Patient Performance or Test Reliability?

From the Department of Ophthalmology, Malmö University Hospital, Sweden.

PURPOSE. To study whether false-negative answers in computerized glaucoma perimetry indicate the patient’s ability to perform perimetry or test result reliability.

METHODS. A retrospective evaluation was performed of visual field test results obtained with a perimetry program (Humphrey 30-2 Sita Standard; Humphrey Instruments, San Leandro, CA) in 70 consecutive patients with unilateral glaucomatous field loss. Frequencies of false-negative answers were compared between the two eyes of each patient and related to amount of visual field damage in the glaucomatous eyes using linear regression analysis.

RESULTS. Frequencies of false-negative answers were higher in eyes with field loss. The intrapatient intereye difference was 6.6% on average (P < 0.0001). In seven subjects with false-negative frequency of 5% or more in both eyes, the mean difference was 12.7% between eyes. The differences in false-negative answers depended significantly on the amount of field loss in the glaucomatous eyes (P = 0.0003). Larger differences were seen in patients with advanced field loss in the affected eye.

CONCLUSIONS. The increased frequencies of false-negative answers in eyes with field loss were strongly associated with field status. The higher false-negative frequencies in eyes with glaucomatous field loss compared with unaffected eyes may be explained by the increased variability in threshold values typically found in such eyes. False-negative answers in patients with glaucoma therefore represent eye rather than patient status.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Hot, M. W. Dul, and W. H. Swanson Development and Evaluation of a Contrast Sensitivity Perimetry Test for Patients with Glaucoma Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., July 1, 2008; 49(7): 3049 - 3057. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Y. Barkana, Y. Gerber, R. Mora, J. M. Liebmann, and R. Ritch Effect of eye testing order on automated perimetry results using the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm standard 24-2. Arch Ophthalmol, June 1, 2006; 124(6): 781 - 784. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Bengtsson, D. Bizios, and A. Heijl Effects of Input Data on the Performance of a Neural Network in Distinguishing Normal and Glaucomatous Visual Fields Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., October 1, 2005; 46(10): 3730 - 3736. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Asman, J. M. Wild, and A. Heijl Appearance of the Pattern Deviation Map as a Function of Change in Area of Localized Field Loss Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., September 1, 2004; 45(9): 3099 - 3106. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]