Corneal thickness measurements and frequency doubling technology perimetry abnormalities in ocular hypertensive eyes

Ophthalmology

Volumn 110, Issue 10, 2003, Pages 1903-1908

  Medeiros, Felipe A ^b   Sample, Pamela A ^b   Weinreb, Robert N ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORNEA THICKNESS; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; ECHOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FREQUENCY DOUBLING TECHNOLOGY PERIMETRY; GLAUCOMA; HIGH RISK POPULATION; HUMAN; INTRAOCULAR HYPERTENSION; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OPTIC DISK; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; VISUAL FIELD DEFECT;

EID: 0141848321     PISSN: 01616420     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0161-6420(03)00734-6     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Johnson M, Kass MA, Moses RA, Grodzki WJ. Increased corneal thickness simulating elevated intraocular pressure. Arch Ophthalmol 1978;96:664-5.
2. Brandt JD. The influence of corneal thickness on the diagnosis and management of glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2001;10(5 Suppl 1):S65-7.
3. Stodtmeister R. Applanation tonometry and correction according to corneal thickness. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1998;76: 319-24.
4. Doughty MJ, Zaman ML. Human corneal thickness and its impact on intraocular pressure measures: a review and metaanalysis approach. Surv Ophthalmol 2000;44:367-408.
5. Whitacre MM, Stein RA, Hassanein K. The effect of corneal thickness on applanation tonometry. Am J Ophthalmol 1993; 115:592-6.
6. Brandt JD, Beiser JA, Kass MA, Gordon MO. Central corneal thickness in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study (OHTS). Ophthalmology 2001;108:1779-88.
7. Herman DC, Hodge DO, Bourne WM. Increased corneal thickness in patients with ocular hypertension. Arch Ophthalmol 2001;119:334-6.
8. Copt RP, Thomas R, Mermoud A. Corneal thickness in ocular hypertension, primary open-angle glaucoma, and normal tension glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1999;117:14-6.
9. Herndon LW, Choudhri SA, Cox T, et al. Central corneal thickness in normal, glaucomatous, and ocular hypertensive eyes. Arch Ophthalmol 1997;115:1137-41.
10. Argus WA. Ocular hypertension and central corneal thickness. Ophthalmology 1995;102:1810-2.
11. Wolfs RC, Klaver CC, Vingerling JR, et al. Distribution of central corneal thickness and its association with intraocular pressure: The Rotterdam Study. Am J Ophthalmol 1997;123: 767-72.
12. Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Brandt JD, et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120:714-20; discussion 829-30.
13. 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.
14. Harwerth RS, Carter-Dawson L, Shen F, et al. Ganglion cell losses underlying visual field defects from experimental glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999;40:2242-50.
15. Sample PA, Weinreb RN. Progressive color visual field loss in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1992;33:2068-71.
16. Sample PA, Taylor JD, Martinez GA, et al. Short-wavelength color visual fields in glaucoma suspects at risk. Am J Ophthalmol 1993;115:225-33.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Sample PA. Short-wavelength automated perimetry: it's role in the clinic and for understanding ganglion cell function. Prog Retin Eye Res 2000;19:369-83.
20. Maddess T, Henry GH. Performance of nonlinear visual units in ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Clin Vis Sci 1992;7: 371-83.
21. Johnson CA. Recent developments in automated perimetry in glaucoma diagnosis and management. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2002;13:77-84.
22. Maddess T. Perspectives on the use of frequency doubling and short wavelength perimetry for the diagnosis of glaucoma. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2000;28:245-7.
23. Maddess T, Goldberg I, Dobinson J, et al. Testing for glaucoma with the spatial frequency doubling illusion. Vision Res 1999;39:4258-73.
24. Kelly DH. Frequency doubling in visual responses. J Opt Soc Am 1966;56:1628-33.
25. Kelly DH. Nonlinear visual responses to flickering sinusoidal gratings. J Opt Soc Am 1981;71:1051-5.
26. Anderson AJ, Johnson CA. Mechanisms isolated by frequency-doubling technology perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002;43:398-401.
27. Johnson CA, Demirel S. The role of spatial and temporal factors in frequency doubling perimetry. In: Heijl A, Wall M, eds. Perimetry Update 1996/1997: Proceedings of the XIIth International Perimetric Society Meeting. Amsterdam: Kugler Publications; 1997:13-9.
28. Johnson CA, Samuels SJ. Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss with frequency-doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1997;38:413-25.
29. Quigley HA. Identification of glaucoma-related visual field abnormality with the screening protocol of frequency doubling technology. Am J Ophthalmol 1998;125:819-29.
30. 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.
31. Horn FK, Wakili N, Junemann AM, Korth M. Testing for glaucoma with frequency-doubling perimetry in normals, ocular hypertensives, and glaucoma patients. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2002;240:658-65.
32. Patel SC, Friedman DS, Varadkar P, Robin AL. Algorithm for interpreting the results of frequency doubling perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol 2000;129:323-7.
33. Thomas R, Bhat S, Muliyil JP, et al. Frequency doubling perimetry in glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2002;11:46-50.
34. Yamada N, Chen PP, Mills RP, et al. Screening for glaucoma with frequency-doubling technology and Damato campimetry. Arch Ophthalmol 1999;117:1479-84.
35. Wadood AC, Azuara-Blanco A, Aspinall P, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of frequency-doubling technology, tendency-oriented perimetry, and Humphrey Swedish interactive threshold algorithm-fast perimetry in a glaucoma practice. Am J Ophthalmol 2002;133:327-32.
36. Bayer AU, Erb C. Short wavelength automated perimetry, frequency doubling technology perimetry, and pattern electroretinography for prediction of progressive glaucomatous standard visual field defects. Ophthalmology 2002;109:1009-17.
37. Paczka JA, Friedman DS, Quigley HA, et al. Diagnostic capabilities of frequency-doubling technology, scanning laser polarimetry, and nerve fiber layer photographs to distinguish glaucomatous damage. Am J Ophthalmol 2001;131:188-97.
38. Wu LL, Suzuki Y, Kunimatsu S, et al. Frequency doubling technology and confocal scanning ophthalmoscopic optic disc analysis in open-angle glaucoma with hemifield defects. J Glaucoma 2001;10:256-60.
39. 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.
40. Medeiros FA, Sample PA, Weinreb RN. Corneal thickness measurements and visual function abnormalities in ocular hypertensive patients. Am J Ophthalmol 2003;135:131-7.
41. Johnson CA, Sample PA, Cioffi GA, et al. Structure and function evaluation (SAFE): I. criteria for glaucomatous visual field loss using standard automated perimetry (SAP) and short wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP). Am J Ophthalmol 2002;134:177-85.
42. Wilson MR, Martone JF. Epidemiology of chronic open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. In: Ritch R, Shields MB, Krupin T, eds. The Glaucomas. 2nd ed. St Louis, MO: Mosby; 1996:753-68.
43. Burnstein Y, Ellish NJ, Magbalon M, Higginbotham EJ. Comparison of frequency doubling perimetry with Humphrey visual field analysis in a glaucoma practice. Am J Ophthalmol 2000;129:328-33.
44. 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.
45. 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.
46. 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.
47. Kondo Y, Yamamoto T, Sato Y, et al. A frequency-doubling perimetric study in normal-tension glaucoma with hemifield defect. J Glaucoma 1998;7:261-5.
48. Landers J, Goldberg I, Graham S. A comparison of short wavelength automated perimetry with frequency doubling perimetry for the early detection of visual field loss in ocular hypertension. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2000;28:248-52.
49. Casson R, James B, Rubinstein A, Ali H. Clinical comparison of frequency doubling technology perimetry and Humphrey perimetry. Br J Ophthalmol 2001;85:360-2.
50. Ehlers N, Bramsen T, Sperling S. Applanation tonometry and central corneal thickness. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1975; 53:34-43.