| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
From Discoveries in Sight, Devers Eye Institute, Portland, Oregon.
PURPOSE. To evaluate and compare intra- and intertest variability components for both standard automated perimetry (SAP) and frequency-doubling technology (FDT) perimetry in a small group of normal individuals and patients with glaucoma.
METHODS. The method of constant stimuli (MOCS) was used to examine matched test locations with both SAP and FDT perimetry stimuli in a group of eight normal individuals and seven patients with glaucoma. Subjects were tested weekly at three predetermined visual field loci for 5 consecutive weeks. Frequency-of-seeing (FOS) curves were generated and used to quantify threshold sensitivity (50% seen on FOS, in decibels), intratest variability (FOS interquartile range, in decibels), and intertest variability (interquartile range of weekly repeated threshold determinations, in decibels).
RESULTS. In patients with glaucoma, SAP intra- and intertest variabilities were found to increase with sensitivity reductions, as previously reported. FDT perimetry revealed that both intra- and intertest variability components did not appreciably change with reductions in sensitivity. With the measurement scales used in this investigation, both intra- and intertest variability components were significantly greater for SAP than for FDT perimetry (P < 0.001 and P = 0.003, respectively). Intratest variability exceeded intertest variability for both SAP (P = 0.001) and FDT perimetry (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS. For both SAP and FDT perimetry, variability occurring within a single test session contributed more to total variability than between-session variability. When the measurement scales available on commercial instrumentation were used, FDT perimetry exhibited significantly less variability than SAP, especially within regions of visual field sensitivity loss. FDT perimetry therefore shows promise as an effective test for detecting progressive glaucomatous visual field loss, although prospective longitudinal validation is still required to determine sensitivity to change.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  L. Racette, F. A. Medeiros, L. M. Zangwill, D. Ng, R. N. Weinreb, and P. A. Sample Diagnostic Accuracy of the Matrix 24-2 and Original N-30 Frequency-Doubling Technology Tests Compared with Standard Automated Perimetry Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., March 1, 2008; 49(3): 954 - 960. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. L. Salvetat, M. Zeppieri, L. Parisi, and P. Brusini Rarebit Perimetry in Normal Subjects: Test Retest Variability, Learning Effect, Normative Range, Influence of Optical Defocus, and Cataract Extraction Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., November 1, 2007; 48(11): 5320 - 5331. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. Bagga, W. J. Feuer, and D. S. Greenfield Detection of psychophysical and structural injury in eyes with glaucomatous optic neuropathy and normal standard automated perimetry. Arch Ophthalmol, February 1, 2006; 124(2): 169 - 176. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. H. Artes, D. M. Hutchison, M. T. Nicolela, R. P. LeBlanc, and B. C. Chauhan Threshold and Variability Properties of Matrix Frequency-Doubling Technology and Standard Automated Perimetry in Glaucoma Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., July 1, 2005; 46(7): 2451 - 2457. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. J. Anderson, C. A. Johnson, M. Fingeret, J. L. Keltner, P. G. D. Spry, M. Wall, and J. S. Werner Characteristics of the Normative Database for the Humphrey Matrix Perimeter Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., April 1, 2005; 46(4): 1540 - 1548. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. A. Haymes, D. M. Hutchison, T. A. McCormick, D. K. Varma, M. T. Nicolela, R. P. LeBlanc, and B. C. Chauhan Glaucomatous Visual Field Progression with Frequency-Doubling Technology and Standard Automated Perimetry in a Longitudinal Prospective Study Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., February 1, 2005; 46(2): 547 - 554. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Bjerre, J. R. Grigg, N. R. A. Parry, and D. B. Henson Test-Retest Variability of Multifocal Visual Evoked Potential and SITA Standard Perimetry in Glaucoma Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., November 1, 2004; 45(11): 4035 - 4040. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. J. Anderson and C. A. Johnson Frequency-Doubling Technology Perimetry and Optical Defocus Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., September 1, 2003; 44(9): 4147 - 4152. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. J. Anderson Spatial Resolution of the Tendency-Oriented Perimetry Algorithm Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., May 1, 2003; 44(5): 1962 - 1968. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. M. McKendrick, A. J. Anderson, C. A. Johnson, and B. Fortune Appearance of the Frequency Doubling Stimulus in Normal Subjects and Patients with Glaucoma Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., March 1, 2003; 44(3): 1111 - 1116. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P G D Spry, C A Johnson, A M McKendrick, and A Turpin Measurement error of visual field tests in glaucoma Br. J. Ophthalmol., January 1, 2003; 87(1): 107 - 112. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. K. Gardiner and D. P. Crabb Examination of Different Pointwise Linear Regression Methods for Determining Visual Field Progression Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., May 1, 2002; 43(5): 1400 - 1407. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S K Gardiner and D P Crabb Frequency of testing for detecting visual field progression Br. J. Ophthalmol., May 1, 2002; 86(5): 560 - 564. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Turpin, A. M. McKendrick, C. A. Johnson, and A. J. Vingrys Performance of Efficient Test Procedures for Frequency-Doubling Technology Perimetry in Normal and Glaucomatous Eyes Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., March 1, 2002; 43(3): 709 - 715. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Turpin, A. M. McKendrick, C. A. Johnson, and A. J. Vingrys Development of Efficient Threshold Strategies for Frequency Doubling Technology Perimetry Using Computer Simulation Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., February 1, 2002; 43(2): 322 - 331. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. M. McKendrick, G. A. Cioffi, and C. A. Johnson Short-Wavelength Sensitivity Deficits in Patients With Migraine Arch Ophthalmol, February 1, 2002; 120(2): 154 - 161. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. G. D. Spry, C. A. Johnson, A. B. Bates, A. Turpin, and B. C. Chauhan Spatial and Temporal Processing of Threshold Data for Detection of Progressive Glaucomatous Visual Field Loss Arch Ophthalmol, February 1, 2002; 120(2): 173 - 180. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
