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


     

Originally published In Press as doi:10.1167/iovs.08-2535 on October 31, 2008
 (Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2009;50:1234-1240.)
© 2009 by The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.
doi:10.1167/iovs.08-2535
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
iovs.08-2535v1
50/3/1234    most recent
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 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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tafreshi, A.
Right arrow Articles by Racette, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Tafreshi, A.
Right arrow Articles by Racette, L.

Visual Function-Specific Perimetry to Identify Glaucomatous Visual Loss Using Three Different Definitions of Visual Field Abnormality

Ali Tafreshi,1 Pamela A. Sample,1 Jeffrey M. Liebmann,2 Christopher A. Girkin,3 Linda M. Zangwill,1 Robert N. Weinreb,1 Maziar Lalezary,1 and Lyne Racette1

1From the Hamilton Glaucoma Center and Department of Ophthalmology, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California; the 2New York Eye and Ear Infirmary, New York, New York; and the 3Department of Ophthalmology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama.

PURPOSE. To compare the most recent versions of standard automated perimetry (SAP), short-wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP), and frequency-doubling technology (FDT) using three definitions of visual field (VF) abnormality: single-test abnormality, abnormality confirmed by the same test, and abnormality confirmed by a different test.

METHODS. Data obtained from one eye of each of 174 patients with glaucoma and 164 age-matched healthy control subjects from the Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma Study and African Descent and Glaucoma Evaluation Study were included, based on the appearance of the optic disc on stereophotographs. Each participant had two reliable 24-2 SAP-SITA, SWAP-SITA, and Matrix FDT tests. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated for the PSD of each test to equate the tests at 90% and 95% specificity. SAP, SWAP, and FDT were compared under each definition of VF abnormality by assessing the sensitivities, the agreement between tests and the overlap in deficit location at these set specificities. The tests were also compared using the machine-derived PSD.

RESULTS. At a set specificity of 95%, single-test sensitivities of 30% (SAP), 29% (SWAP), and 28% (FDT) were observed (all P > 0.05). Sensitivities ranged from 24% to 27% (all P > 0.05) when same-test confirmation was used and from 20% to 23% (all P > 0.05) when different-test confirmation was used. SAP/SAP sensitivity was higher than all different-test combinations (all P < 0.05), and SWAP/FDT sensitivity was lower than all same-test combinations (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS. Confirming VF abnormality is important and optimal when an abnormal SAP is confirmed by a subsequent SAP or SWAP test.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology