The reliability of frequency-doubling technology (FDT) perimetry in a pediatric population

Optometry

Volumn 74, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 173-179

  Becker, Kristine ^a   Semes, Leo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM   (United States)

Author keywords

Frequency doubling perimetry; Pediatric; Visual field

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ARTICLE; CHILD; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; EVALUATION; EYE FIXATION; FEMALE; FREQUENCY DOUBLING TECHNOLOGY PERIMETRY; HUMAN; MALE; MASS SCREENING; NORMAL HUMAN; OPTOMETRY; PEDIATRICS; PERIMETRY; SCREENING TEST; VISUAL FIELD DEFECT; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; METHODOLOGY; PRESCHOOL CHILD; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD; VISION TEST; VISUAL DISORDER; VISUAL FIELD;

ADOLESCENT; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FIXATION, OCULAR; HUMANS; PERIMETRY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VISION DISORDERS; VISION SCREENING; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 0037363033     PISSN: 15291839     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Johnson CA, Samuels SJ. Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss with frequency-doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1997;38:413-25.
2. Quigley HA. Identification of glaucoma-related visual field abnormality with the screening protocol of frequency doubling technology. Am J Ophthalmol 1998;125:819-29.
3. Brusini P, Busatto P. Frequency doubling perimetry in glaucoma early diagnosis. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1998; 227(Suppl):23-4.
4. Sponsel WE, Arango S, Trigo Y, et al. Clinical classification of glaucomatous visual field loss by frequency doubling perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol 1998;125:830-6.
5. Yamada N, Chen PP, Mills RP, et al. Screening for glaucoma with frequency-doubling technology and Damato campimetry. Arch Ophthalmol 1999;117:1479-84.
6. Fujimoto N, Adachi-Usami E. Frequency doubling perimetry in resolved optic neuritis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000;41:2558-65.
7. Phipps JA, Guymer RH, Vingrys AJ. Temporal sensitivity deficits in patients with high-risk drusen. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol 1999;27:265-7.
8. Sheu SJ, Chen YY, Lin HC, et al. Frequency doubling technology perimetry in retinal diseases - preliminary report. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 2001;17:25-8.
9. Thomas D, Thomas R, Muliyil JP, et al. Role of frequency doubling perimetry in detecting neuro-ophthalmic visual field defects. Am J Ophthalmol 2001;131:734-41.
10. Sample PA, Bosworth CF, Blumenthal EZ. et al. Visual function-specific perimetry for indirect comparison of different ganglion cell populations in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000;41:1783-90.
11. Rota-Bartelink A. The diagnostic value of automated flicker threshold perimetry. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 1999;10:135-9.
12. Hodapp E, Parrish RK II, Anderson DR. Clinical decisions in glaucoma. St. Louis: Mosby-Yearbook, 1993.
13. Burnstein Y, Ellish NJ, Magbalon M, et al. Comparison of frequency doubling perimetry with Humphrey visual field analysis in a glaucoma practice. Am J Ophthalmol 2000;129:328-33.
14. 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.
15. Trible JR, Schultz RO, Robinson JC, et al. Accuracy of glaucoma detection with frequency-doubling perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol 2000;129: 740-5.
16. Patel SC, Friedman DS, Vardakar P, et al. Algorithm for interpreting the results of frequency doubling perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol 2000;129:323-37.
17. Cioffi GA, Mansberger S, Spry P, et al. Frequency doubling perimetry and the detection of eye disease in the community. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 2000;98:195-9.
18. Wu LL, Suzuki Y, Kunimatsu S, et al. Frequency doubling technology and confocal scanning ophthalmoscopic optic analysis in open-angle glaucoma with hemifield defects. J Glaucoma 2001;10:256-60.
19. Horikoshi N, Osako M, Tamura Y, et al. Comparison of detectability of visual field abnormality by frequency doubling technology in primary open angle glaucoma and normal-tension glaucoma. Jap J Ophthalmol 2001;45:503-9.
20. Khong JJ, Dimitrov PN Rait J, et al. Can the specificity of the FDT for glaucoma be improved by confirming abnormal results? J Glaucoma 2001;10:199-202.
21. Thomas R, Bhat S, Muliyil JO, et al. Frequency doubling perimetry in glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2002;11:46-50.
22. Casson R, James B, Rubenstein A, et al. Clinical comparison of frequency doubling technology perimetry and Humphrey perimetry. Br J Ophthalmol 2001;85:360-2.
23. Pammer K, Wheatley C. Isolating the M(y)-cell response in dyslexia using the spatial frequency doubling illusion. Vision Res 2001;41:2139-47.
24. Adams CW, Bullimore MA, Wall M, et al. Normal aging effects for frequency doubling technology perimetry. Optom Vis Sci 1999;76:582-7.
25. Morales J, Brown SM. The feasibility of short automated static perimetry in children. Ophthalmology 2001;108:157-62.
26. Tschopp C, Safran AB, Viviani P, et al. Automated visual field examination in children aged 5-8 years; Part I: Experimental validation of a testing procedure. Vision Res 1998;38:2203-10.
27. Tschopp C, Safran AB, Viviani P, et al. Automated visual field examination in children aged 5-8 years. Part II: Normative values. Vision Res 1998;38:2211-8.
28. Donahue SP, Porter A. SITA visual field testing in children. J AAPOS 2001;5:114-7.
29. Joson PJ, Kamantugue MEG, Chen PP. Learning effects among perimetric novices in frequency doubling technology perimetry. Ophthalmology 2002;109:757-60.