Measurement error of visual field tests in glaucoma

British Journal of Ophthalmology

Volumn 87, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 107-112

  Spry, Paul G D ^a,b   Johnson, C A ^b   McKendrick, A M ^b,c   Turpin, A ^b,d  

^a BRISTOL EYE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b DEVERS EYE INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

^d CURTIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; AUTOANALYSIS; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORNEA SENSIBILITY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; FEMALE; FREQUENCY ANALYZER; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; LABORATORY TEST; MALE; OPEN ANGLE GLAUCOMA; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PSYCHOPHYSICS; STANDARD; VISION TEST; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL FIELD DEFECT; VISUAL STIMULATION;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA, OPEN-ANGLE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERIMETRY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PSYCHOPHYSICS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSORY THRESHOLDS; VISION TESTS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 0037232816     PISSN: 00071161     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bjo.87.1.107     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Engen T. Psychophysics. 1 Discrimination and detection. In: Kling JK, Riggs LA, eds. Experimental Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc, 1971.
2. Gordis L. Epidemiology. 1st Ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1996.
3. Johnson CA, Chauhan BC, Shapiro LR. Properties of staircase procedures for estimating thresholds in automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1992;33:2966-74.
4. Chauhan BC, Johnson CA. Evaluating and optimizing test strategies in automated perimetry. J Glaucoma 1994;3:S73-81.
5. Glass E, Schaumberger M, Lachenmayr BJ. Simulations for FASTPAC and the standard 4-2 dB full-threshold strategy of the Humphrey Field Analyzer. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1995;36:1847-54.
6. Turpin A, McKendrick AM, Johnson CA, et al. Development of efficient threshold strategies for frequency doubling technology perimetry using computer simulation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002;43:322-31.
7. Spahr J. Optimization of the presentation pattern in automated static perimetry. Vis Res 1975;15:1275-81.
8. Bebie H, Fankhauser F, Spahr J. Static perimetry: Strategies. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1976;54:325-38.
9. Heijl A. The Humphrey field analyzer, construction and concepts. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser 1985;42:77-84.
10. Wetherill, Levitt. Sequential estimation of points on a psychometric function. Br J Math Star Psychol 1965;18:1-10.
11. Johnson CA, Lewis RA. Staircase scoring procedures for automated perimetry. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser 1987;49:575-80.
12. Bland J, Altman D. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307-10.
13. Streiner D, Norman G. Health Measurement Scales. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications, 1995.
14. Landis J, Koch G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-74.
15. Bengtsson B, Heijl A, Olsson J. Evaluation of a new threshold visual field strategy, SITA, in normal subjects. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1998;76:165-9.
16. Wild JM, Pacey IE, Hancock SA, et al. Between-algorithm, between-individual differences in normal perimetric sensitivity: Full threshold, FASTPAC, and SITA. Swedish Interactive Threshold algorithm. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999;40:1152-61.
17. Heijl A Bengtsson B, Patella VM. Glaucoma follow-up when converting from long to short perimetric threshold tests. Arch Ophthalmol 2000;118:489-93.
18. Bebie H, Fankhauser F, Spahr J. Static perimetry:accuracy and fluctuations. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1976;54:339-48.
19. Flammer J Drance SM, Zulauf M. Differential light threshold. Short- and long-term fluctuation in patients with glaucoma, normal controls, and patients with suspected glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1984;102:704-6.
20. Heijl A, Lindgren A, Lindgren G. Test-retest variability in glaucomatous visual fields. Am J Ophthalmol 1989;108:130-5.
21. Chauhan BC, Johnson CA. Test-retest variability of frequency-doubling perimetry and conventional perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal subjects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999;40:648-56.
22. Spry PGD, Johnson CA, McKendrick AM et al. Variability components of standard automated perimetry and frequency doubling technology perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2001;42:1404-10.
23. Shapiro LR Johnson CA, Kennedy RL. KRAKEN. A computer simulation proceedure for static, kinetic, suprathreshold and heuristic perimetry. In:A. Heijl, eds. Perimetry Update 1988/9. Amsterdam: Kugler and Ghedini, 1989:431-8.
24. Wall M, Johnson CA, Kutzko KE, et al. Long- and short-term variability of automated perimetry results in patients with optic neuritis and healthy subjects. Arch Ophthalmol 1998;116:53-61.
25. Turpin A, Johnson CA, Spry PGD. Development of a maximum likelihood procedure for short-wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP). In: Wall M, Mills RP, eds. Perimetry Update 2000/1. Amsterdam: Kugler, 2001:139-48.
26. Spry PGD, Johnson CA. Within-test variability of frequency doubling perimetry using a 24-2 test pattern. J Glaucoma 2002;(in press).
27. Chauhan BC, Tompkins JD, LeBlanc RP, et al. Characteristics or frequency-of-seeing curves in normal subjects, patients with suspected glaucoma, and patients with glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1993;34:3534-40.
28. Henson DB, Chaudry S, Artes PH, et al. Response variability in the visual field: Comparison of optic neuritis, glaucoma, ocular hypertension, and normal eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000;41:417-21.
29. Wall M, Kutzko KE, Chauhan BC. Variability in patients with glaucomatous visual field damage is reduced using size V stimuli. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1997;38:426-35.
30. Spry PGD, Johnson CA. Identification of progressive glaucomatous visual field loss. Surv Ophthalmol 2002;47:158-73.