Comparison of frequency doubling perimetry with Humphrey visual field analysis in a glaucoma practice

被引:100
|
作者
Burnstein, Y [1 ]
Ellish, NJ [1 ]
Magbalon, M [1 ]
Higginbotham, EJ [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Maryland, Sch Med, Dept Ophthalmol, Baltimore, MD 21201 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1016/S0002-9394(99)00364-5
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
PURPOSE: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of frequency doubling perimetry with Humphrey visual field testing used as the gold standard. METHODS: Frequency doubling perimetry and Humphrey visual field testing (24-2) were performed on 29 consecutive patients in a glaucoma practice. Data for the right eye were used to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: For the frequency doubling perimetry in screening mode, and with an abnormal glaucoma hemifield test used as the gold standard, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 89.3%, 81.5%, or 75.0% for the presence of mild, moderate, or severe relative defects, respectively. Similar results were found with the use of mean deviation (P < .05) to define Humphrey visual field defects. For frequency doubling perimetry in threshold mode, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 93.4% with the presence of any defect (P < .05) used as the criterion for an abnormal case, and an abnormal glaucoma hemifield test as the gold standard. In all cases, the threshold mode detected defects better than the screening mode. CONCLUSIONS: Frequency doubling perimetry showed a high sensitivity and specificity for detecting visual field abnormalities, especially when threshold strategies were used. (C) 2000 by Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:328 / 333
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [2] A comparison between Humphrey and frequency doubling perimetry for chiasmal visual field defects
    Noval, S
    Contreras, I
    Rebolleda, G
    Muñoz-Negrete, FJ
    De Zárate, BR
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2005, 15 (06) : 739 - 745
  • [3] Clinical comparison of frequency doubling technology perimetry and Humphrey perimetry
    Casson, R
    James, B
    Rubinstein, A
    Ali, H
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2001, 85 (03) : 360 - 362
  • [4] Relationship between indices of Humphrey perimetry and Frequency Doubling Technology perimetry in glaucoma
    Fukushima, A
    Shirakashi, M
    Yaoeda, K
    Funaki, S
    Funaki, H
    Ofuchi, N
    Abe, H
    JOURNAL OF GLAUCOMA, 2004, 13 (02) : 114 - 119
  • [5] Humphrey matrix frequency doubling perimetry for detection of visual-field defects in open-angle glaucoma
    Clement, C. I.
    Goldberg, I.
    Healey, P. R.
    Graham, S.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2009, 93 (05) : 582 - 588
  • [6] Comparison of Frequency Doubling and Humphrey 24-2 Perimetry in normal tension glaucoma
    Bhagat, S
    Ramaesh, K
    Bolton, N
    Barron, AJ
    INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 1999, 40 (04) : S842 - S842
  • [7] Visual field indexes for version 3.0 of frequency doubling perimetry in patients with glaucoma
    Zhang, DW
    Minowa, K
    Hanawa, T
    Fujimoto, N
    Tsukamoto, K
    Adachi-Usami, E
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2003, 135 (01) : 99 - 101
  • [8] A comparison of diagnostic protocols for interpretation of frequency doubling perimetry visual fields in glaucoma
    Landers, John
    Sharma, Alok
    Goldberg, Ivan
    Graham, Stuart
    JOURNAL OF GLAUCOMA, 2006, 15 (04) : 310 - 314
  • [9] A comparison of frequency doubling perimetry threshold test to sita standard threshold algorithm of the Humphrey visual field analyser.
    Denis, P
    Chouette, C
    Chiquet, C
    Burillon, C
    Masset-Otto, H
    INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2000, 41 (04) : S88 - S88
  • [10] Visual field indices for frequency doubling perimetry
    Cello, KE
    Johnson, CA
    NelsonQuigg, JM
    Samuels, SJ
    INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 1997, 38 (04) : 2659 - 2659