Anatomy of a Supergroup: Does a Criterion of Normal Perimetric Performance Generate a Supernormal Population?

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 44, Issue 11, 2003, Pages 5043-5048

  Anderson, Andrew John ^b   Johnson, Chris A ^a  

^a DEVERS EYE INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL ANATOMY; HUMAN; MALE; MONTE CARLO METHOD; NORMAL HUMAN; PERIMETRY; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SLIT LAMP; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISUAL ACUITY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PERIMETRY; PROBABILITY; REFERENCE VALUES; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 0142169858     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.03-0058     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Adams CW, Bullimore MA, Wall M, Fingeret M, Johnson CA. Normal aging effects for frequency doubling technology perimetry. Optom Vis Sci. 1999;76:582-587.
2. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J. Normal variability of static perimetric threshold values across the central visual field. Arch Ophthalmol. 1987;105:1544-1549.
3. Johnson CA, Adams AJ, Casson EJ, Brandt JD. Blue-on-yellow perimetry can predict the development of glaucomatous visual field loss. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993;111:645-650.
4. Casson EJ, Johnson CA, Nelson-Quigg JM. Temporal modulation perimetry: the effects of aging and eccentricity on sensitivity in normal. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1993;34:3096-3102.
5. Bengtsson B. A new rapid threshold algorithm for short-wave-length automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:1388-1394.
6. Wong AMF, Sharpe JA. A comparison of tangent screen, Goldmann, and Humphrey perimetry in the detection and localization of occipital lesions. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:527-544.
7. Fujimoto N, Saeki N, Miyauchi O, Adachi-Usami E. Criteria for early detection of temporal hemianopia in asymptomatic pituitary tumor. Eye. 2002;16:731-738.
8. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J. A package for the statistical analysis of visual fields. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser. 1987;54:153-168.
9. Bengtsson B, Olsson J, Heijl A, Rootzén H. A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry, SITA. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1997;75:368-375.
10. Harper R, Reeves B. Compliance with methodological standards when evaluating ophthalmic diagnostic tests. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40:1650-1657.
11. Harper R, Henson D, Reeves BC. Appraising evaluations of screening/diagnostic tests: the importance of the study populations. Br J Ophthalmol. 2000;84:1198-1202.
12. Anderson AJ, Vingrys AJ. Small samples: does size matter? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42:1411-1413.
13. Weih LM, Nanjan M, McCarty CA, Taylor HR. Prevalence and predictors of open-angle glaucoma: results from the visual impairment project. Ophthalmology. 2001;108:1966-1972.
14. Sponsel WE, Santiago A, Yolanda T, Mensah J. Clinical classification of glaucomatous visual field loss by frequency doubling perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;125:830-836.
15. 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;40:648-656.
16. Horikoshi N, Osako M, Tamura Y, Okano T, Usui M. Comparison of detectability of visual field abnormality by frequency doubling technology in primary open-angle glaucoma and normal-tension glaucoma. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2001;45:503-509.
17. Altman DG, Bland JM. Measurement in medicine: the analysis of method comparison studies. The Statistician. 1983;32:307-317.
18. Johnson CA, Samuels SJ. Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss with frequency-doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997;38:413-425.
19. Johnson CA, Cioffi GA, Van Buskirk EM. Frequency doubling technology perimetry using a 24-2 stimulus presentation pattern. Optom Vis Sci. 1999;76:571-581.
20. Johnson CA, Sample PA, Cioffi GA, Liebmann JR, Weinreb RN. 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;134:177-185.
21. Anderson DR, Patella VM. Automated Static Perimetry. St. Louis: CV Mosby; 1999:111-113.
22. Hays WL. Statistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. 1963:641-652.
23. Press WH, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling WT, Flannery BP. Numerical Recipes in C. The Art of Scientific Computing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1992;278-282.
24. Soliman MAE, de Jong LAMS, Ismaeil AA, van den Berg TJTP, de Smet MD. Standard achromatic perimetry, short wavelength automated perimetry, and frequency doubling technology for detection of glaucoma damage. Ophthalmology. 2002;109:444-454.
25. Chauhan BC, Drance SM, Douglas GR. The use of visual field indices in detecting changes in the visual field in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1990;31:512-520.
26. Khong JJ, Dimitrov PN, Rait J, McCarty CA. Can the specificity of the FDT for glaucoma be improved by confirming abnormal results? J Glaucoma. 2001;10:199-202.