IOVS Heart
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

(Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2004;45:3355-3360.)
© 2004 by The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.
DOI:  10.1167/iovs.04-0253
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (7)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Phipps, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Guymer, R. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Phipps, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Guymer, R. H.

Flicker Perimetry Losses in Age-Related Macular Degeneration

Joanna A. Phipps,1 Trung M. Dang,1 Algis J. Vingrys,1 and Robyn H. Guymer2

1From the Department of Optometry and Vision Sciences, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; and the 2Centre for Eye Research Australia, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

PURPOSE. To compare static and flicker perimetry outcomes in patients with early age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

METHODS. Perimetry was performed in the central visual field of one eye of each of 25 patients with good visual acuity (>6/12) and early AMD using static and flickering targets. These results were compared with data obtained from a single eye of 34 age-matched control subjects, 33 of whom were retested at 1 to 3 months after their initial visits.

RESULTS. In all cases, patients with early AMD had greater mean defects for flickering than static targets, returning a significantly larger group average in response to flicker (4.3 ± 0.6 dB) than to static (1.8 ± 0.6 dB; P < 0.005). Greater pattern defect losses were also present in AMD-affected eyes with flicker compared with static perimetry (P < 0.02). These give a higher diagnostic sensitivity for flicker (68% vs. 42%, P < 0.05) at 90% specificity. Sensitivity can be increased to 84% ± 6% (specificity 92% ± 4%) if the criterion for failure is a more than 10-dB loss in the foveal region (1°–3°).

CONCLUSIONS. Flickering targets expose foveal deficits in early AMD better than do static targets. Flicker perimetry is an easy, short procedure that may be useful for monitoring the progression of AMD.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2004 by the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology