Automated perimetry: A report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology

Ophthalmology

Volumn 109, Issue 12, 2002, Pages 2362-2374

  Delgado, Maria F ^a   Nguyen, Ngoc T A ^a   Cox, Terry A ^a   Singh, Kuldev ^a   Lee, David A ^a   Dueker, David K ^a   Fechtner, Robert D ^a   Juzych, Mark S ^a   Lin, Shan C ^a   Netland, Peter A ^a   Pastor, Scott A ^a   Schuman, Joel S ^a   Samples, John R ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CORNEA OPACITY; DISEASE COURSE; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; GLAUCOMA; INSTRUMENT; MEDICAL SOCIETY; OPHTHALMOLOGY; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TECHNIQUE; VISUAL IMPAIRMENT;

EID: 0036896116     PISSN: 01616420     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0161-6420(02)01726-8     Document Type: Review

References (54)

1. Katz J, Quigley HA, Sommer A. Repeatability of the Glaucoma Hemifield Test in automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1995;36:1658-64.
2. Ogden TE. Nerve fiber layer of the primate retina: Morphometric analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1984;25:19-29.
3. Dacey DM, Petersen MR. Dendritic field size and morphology of midget and parasol ganglion cells of the human retina. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1992;89:9666-70.
4. Quigley HA, Addicks EM, Green WR. Optic nerve damage in human glaucoma: III. Quantitative correlation of nerve fiber loss and visual field defect in glaucoma, ischemic neuropathy, papilledema, and toxic neuropathy. Arch Ophthalmol 1982;100:135-46.
5. Sommer A, Katz J, Quigley HA, et al. Clinically detectable nerve fiber atrophy precedes the onset of glaucomatous field loss. Arch Ophthalmol 1991;109:77-83.
6. Zeyen TG, Caprioli J. Progression of disc and field damage in early glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1993;111:62-5.
7. Adams AJ, Rodic R, Husted R, Stamper R. Spectral sensitivity and color discrimination changes in glaucoma and glaucoma-suspect patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1982;23:516-24.
8. Drance SM, Lakowski R, Schulzer M, Douglas GR. Acquired color vision changes in glaucoma: Use of 100-hue test and Pickford anomaloscope as predictors of glaucomatous field change. Arch Ophthalmol 1981;99:829-31.
9. Johnson CA, Adams AJ, Casson EJ, Brandt JD. Blue-on-yellow perimetry can predict the development of glaucomatous visual field loss. Arch Ophthalmol 1993;111:645-50.
10. Sample PA, Weinreb RN. Progressive color visual field loss in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1992;33:2068-71.
11. Johnson CA, Adams AJ, Casson EJ, Brandt JD. Progression of early glaucomatous visual field loss as detected by blue-on-yellow and standard white-on-white automated perimetry. Arch Ophthalmol 1993;111:651-6.
12. Wild JM. Short wavelength automated perimetry. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2001;79:546-59.
13. Sample PA, Johnson CA, Haegerstrom-Portnoy G, Adams AJ. Optimum parameters for short-wavelength automated perimetry. J Glaucoma 1996;5:375-83.
14. Johnson CA, Brandt JD, Khong AM, Adams AJ. Short-wave-length automated perimetry in low-, medium-, and high-risk ocular hypertensive eyes: Initial baseline results. Arch Ophthalmol 1995;113:70-6.
15. Wild JM, Moss ID, Whitaker D, O'Neill EC. The statistical interpretation of blue-on-yellow visual field loss. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1995;36:1398-410.
16. Demirel S, Johnson CA. Incidence and prevalence of short wavelength automated perimetry deficits in ocular hypertensive patients. Am J Ophthalmol 2001;131:709-15.
17. Johnson CA, Samuels SJ. Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss with frequency-doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1997;38:413-25.
18. Maddess T, Henry GH. Performance of nonlinear visual units in ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Clin Vis Sci 1992;7:371-83.
19. Kelly DH. Frequency doubling in visual responses. J Opt Soc Am 1966;56:1628-33.
20. Kelly DH. Nonlinear visual responses to flickering sinusoidal gratings. J Opt Soc Am 1981;71:1051-5.
21. Spry PG, Johnson CA, McKendrick AM, Turpin A. Variability components of standard automated perimetry and frequency-doubling technology perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2001;42:1404-10.
22. Johnson CA, Shapiro LR. A comparison of MOBS (modified binary search) and staircase test procedures in automated perimetry. In: Noninvasive Assessment of the Visual System. Washington, D.C.: Optical Society of America, 1989;84-7. Technical Digest Series; 7.
23. Quigley HA. Identification of glaucoma-related visual field abnormality with the screening protocol of frequency doubling technology. Am J Ophthalmol 1998;125:819-29.
24. Frisen L. High-pass resolution perimetry: A clinical review. Doc Ophthalmol 1993;83:1-25.
25. Chauhan BC, House PH, McCormick TA, LeBlanc RP. Comparison of conventional and high-pass resolution perimetry in a prospective study of patients with glaucoma and healthy controls. Arch Ophthalmol 1999;117:24-33.
26. Birt CM, Shin DH, McCarty B, et al. Comparison between high-pass resolution perimetry and differential light sensitivity perimetry in patients with glaucoma. J Glaucoma 1998;7:111-6.
27. Frisen L. High pass resolution perimetry: Recent developments. In: Heijl A, ed. Perimetry Update 1988/1989. Berkeley: Kugler & Ghedini, 1989;369-75.
28. Wall M, Ketoff KM. Random dot motion perimetry in patients with glaucoma and in normal subjects. Am J Ophthalmol 1995;120:587-96.
29. Silverman SE, Trick GL, Hart WM Jr. Motion perception is abnormal in primary open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1990;31:722-9.
30. Bullimore MA, Wood JM, Swenson K. Motion perception in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1993;34:3526-33.
31. Bosworth CF, Sample PA, Gupta N, et al. Motion automated perimetry identifies early glaucomatous field defects. Arch Ophthalmol 1998;116:1153-8.
32. Bengtsson B, Olsson J, Heijl A, Rootzen H. A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry, SITA. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1997;75:368-75.
33. Bengtsson B, Heijl A, Olsson J. Evaluation of a new threshold visual field strategy, SITA, in normal subjects: Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1998;76:165-9.
34. Heijl A. Improved test algorithms for automated perimetry. In: Kriegelstein GK, ed. Glaucoma Update V. Heidelberg: Kaden, 1995;168-73.
35. Watson AB, Pelli DG. QUEST: a Bayesian adaptive psychometric method. Percept Psychophys 1983;33:113-20.
36. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. SITA Fast, a new rapid perimetric threshold test: Description of methods and evaluation in patients with manifest and suspect glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1998;76:431-7.
37. Oxford, England: National Health Service Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. [Revised May 31, 2002; cited July 2002] Available from URL: http://cebm.jr2.ox.ac.uk.
38. Maeda H, Tanaka Y, Nakamura M, Yamamoto M. Blue-on-yellow perimetry using an Armaly glaucoma screening program. Ophthalmologica 1999;213:71-5.
39. Sample PA, Martinez GA, Weinreb RN. Short-wavelength automated perimetry without lens density testing. Am J Ophthalmol 1994;118:632-41.
40. Sample PA, Bosworth CF, Weinreb RN. Short-wavelength automated perimetry and motion automated perimetry in patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1997;115:1129-33.
41. Blumenthal EZ, Sample PA, Zangwill L, et al. Comparison of long-term variability for standard and short-wavelength automated perimetry in stable glaucoma patients. Am J Ophthalmol 2000;129:309-13.
42. Brusini P, Busatto P. Frequency doubling perimetry in glaucoma early diagnosis. Acta Ophthalmol Scand Suppl 1998;227:23-4.
43. Cello KE, Nelson-Quigg JM, Johnson CA. Frequency doubling technology perimetry for detection of glaucomatous visual field loss. Am J Ophthalmol 2000;129:314-22.
44. Iester M, Mermoud A, Schnyder C. Frequency doubling technique in patients with ocular hypertension and glaucoma: Correlation with Octopus perimeter indices. Ophthalmology 2000;107:288-94.
45. Sponsel WE, Arango S, Trigo Y, Mensah J. Clinical classification of glaucomatous visual field loss by frequency doubling perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol 1998;125:830-6.
46. Johnson CA, Cioffi GA, Van Buskirk EM. Frequency doubling technology perimetry using a 24 - 2 stimulus presentation pattern. Optom Vis Sci 1999;76:571-81.
47. Wu J, Coffey M, Reidy A, Wormald R. Impaired motion sensitivity as a predictor of subsequent field loss in glaucoma suspects: The Roscommon Glaucoma Study. Br J Ophthalmol 1998;82:534-7.
48. Shirato S, Inoue R, Fukushima K, Suzuki Y. Clinical evaluation of SITA: A new family of perimetric testing strategies. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1999;237:143-6.
49. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. Comparing significance and magnitude of glaucomatous visual field defects using the SITA and full threshold strategies. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1999;77:143-6.
50. Sharma AK, Goldberg I, Graham SL, Mohsin M. Comparison of the Humphrey Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm (SITA) and full threshold strategies. J Glaucoma 2000;9:20-7.
51. Sekhar GC, Naduvilath TJ, Lakkai M, et al. Sensitivity of Swedish interactive threshold algorithm compared with standard full threshold algorithm in Humphrey visual field testing. Ophthalmology 2000;107:1303-8.
52. Bengtsson B. Reliability of computerized perimetric threshold tests as assessed by reliability indices and threshold reproducibility in patients with suspect and manifest glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2000;78:519-22.
53. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. False-negative responses in glaucoma perimetry: Indicators of patient performance or test reliability? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000;41:2201-4.
54. American Academy of Ophthalmology. Automated perimetry. Ophthalmology 1996;103:1144-51.