Multicenter evaluation of tendency-oriented perimetry (TOP) using the G1 grid

European Journal of Ophthalmology

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 32-41

  Gonzáles de la Rosa, Manuel ^a,j   Morales, J ^b   Dannheim, F ^c   Papst, E ^d   Papst, N ^d   Seilers, T ^e   Matsumoto, C ^f   Lachkar, Y ^g   Mermoud, A ^h   Prunte C ⁱ  

^a UNIVERSIDAD DE LA LAGUNA   (Spain)

^b TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Asklepios Klinik Harburg   (Germany)

^d Praxis   (Germany)

^e DRESDEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

^f KINKI UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

^g SAINT JOSEPH HOSPITAL   (France)

^h UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE   (Switzerland)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF BASEL   (Switzerland)

^j NONE   (Spain)

more..

Author keywords

Glaucoma; Perimetry; Threshold; Visual field

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC METHOD; ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; CHORIORETINOPATHY; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; EVALUATION; G1 STANDARD BRACKETING; G1 TENDENCY ORIENTED PERIMETRY; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MULTICENTER STUDY; NEUROLOGIC DISEASE; PERIMETER; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VISUAL ACUITY;

EID: 0345268718     PISSN: 11206721     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/112067210301300105     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Johnson CA, Adams CV, Lewis RA. Fatigue effects in automated perimetry. Appl Optics 1988; 27: 1030-7.
2. González de la Rosa M, Martinez A, Sanchez M, Mesa C, Cordovés L, Losada MJ. Accuracy of the tendency oriented perimetry (TOP) in the Octopus 1-2-3 perimeter. In: Wall M, Heijl A, eds. Perimetry update 1996/1997. Amsterdam: Kugler Publ, 1997; 119-23.
3. Bengtsson B, Olsson J, Heijl A, Rootzen H. A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry, SITA. Acta Ophthalmol 1997; 75: 368-75.
4. Bass SJ, Abraham-Cohen J, Feldman J, Wyatt H. Humphrey SITA vs Octopus TOP in glaucoma patients. (ARVO Abstract). Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000; 41 (Suppl.): S88.
5. Fabre K, Michiels I, Zeyen T. The sensitivity and specificity of TOP, FDP and GDX in screening for early glaucoma. Bull Soc Beige Ophtalmol 2000; 275: 17-23.
6. Lachkar Y, Barrault O, Lefrançois A, Demailly Ph. Stratégie rapide "TOP" en périmétrie automatisée Octopus. J Fr Ophtalmol 1998; 21: 180-4.
7. Morales J, Weitzmann M, González de la Rosa M. Comparison between tendency oriented perimetry (TOP) and Octopus threshold perimetry. Ophthalmology 2000; 107: 134-42.
8. González de la Rosa M, Losada MJ, Serrano M, Morales J. G1-Tendency oriented perimetry (TOP): Introduction and comparison with G1-standard bracketing. In: Wall M, Wild J, eds. Perimetry update 1998/1999. Amsterdam: Kugler Publ, 1999; 43-9.
9. González de la Rosa M, Rodríguez J, Rodríguez M. Flicker-TOP perimetry in normals, patients with ocular hypertension and early glaucoma. In: Wall M, Wild J, eds. Perimetry update 1998/1999. Amsterdam: Kugler Publ, 1999; 59-66.
10. Rodríguez J, Corclobés L, Abreu A, González de la Rosa M. TOP-Flicker fluctuation in ocular hipertension. In: Wall M and Mills RP, eds. Perimetry update 2000/2001. Amsterdam: Kugler Publ, 2001; 149-53.
11. González-Hernández M, Pareja Ríos A, Rodríguez M, González de la Rosa M. Combined spatial resolution and contrast perimetry in normal subjects. In: Wall M, Mills RP, eds. Perimetry update 2000/2001. Amsterdam: Kugler Publ, 2001; 109-14.
12. Sponsel WE, Ritch R, Stamper R, Higginbotham EJ, Anderson DR, Wilson MR, Zimmerman TJ. Prevent blindness America visual field screening study. Am J Ophthalmol 1995; 120: 699-708.
13. Flanagan J, Wild J, Trope G. Evaluation of FASTPAC, a new strategy for thresholds estimation with the Humphrey field analyzer, in a glaucomatous population. Ophthalmology 1993; 100: 949-54.
14. O'Brien C, Poinoosawmy S, Hitchings R. Evaluation of the Humphrey FASTPAC threshold program in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 1994; 78: 516-9.
15. O'Donnell NP, Birch MK, Wishart PK. Fastpac error is within the long term fluctuation of standard Humphrey Threshold visual field testing. In: Mills RP, Wall M, eds. Perimetry update 1994/1995. Amsterdam: Kugler Publ, 1995; 2:31-7.
16. Zulauf M, Fehlmann P, Flammer J. Efficiency of the standard Octopus bracketing procedure compared to that of the "Dynamic strategy" of Weber. In: Mills RP, Wall M, eds. Perimetry update 1994/1995. Amsterdam: Kugler Publ, 1995; 263-4.
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. Hudson C, Wild JM, O'Neill E. Fatigue effects during a single session of automated static threshold perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1994; 35: 268-80.
19. González de la Rosa M, Pareja A. Influence of the latigue effect on the mean deviation measurement in perimetry. Eur J Ophthalmol 1997; 7: 29-34.
20. Martinez A, Pareja A, Mantolan C, Sanchez M, Cordoves L, González de la Rosa M. Results of the tendency criented perimetry (TOP) in normal population. (JERMOV Abstract). Vision Res 1996; 36: 153.
21. Pearson PA, Baldwing LB, Smith TJ. The relationship of mean defect to corrected loss variance in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Ophthalmologica 1990; 200: 16-21.
22. Horikoshi N, Osako M, Goto H, Tamura Y, Okano T. Clinical evaluation of tendency oriented perimetry in Octopus perimeter. Jap J Clin Ophthalmol 1999; 53: 889-93.
23. Langerhorst CT, Carenini LL, Bakker D, van der Berg TJ, de Bie-Raakman MA. Comparison of SITA and dynamic strategies with the same examination grid. In Wall M, Wild J, eds. Perimetry update 1998/1999. Amsterdam: Kugler Publ, 1999; 17-24.
24. Maeda H, Nakaura M, Negi A. New perimetric threshold test algorithm with dynamic strategy and tendency oriented perimetry (TOP) in glaucomatous eyes. Eye 2000; 5: 747-51.
25. Asman P, Heijl A. Diffuse visual field loss and glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol 1994; 72: 303-8.
26. Katz J, Sommer A. A longitudinal study of the age-adjusted variability of automated visual fields. Arch Ophthalmol 1987; 105: 1083-6.
27. González de la Rosa M, Martinez Piñero A, González-Hernández M. Reproducibility of the TOP algorithm results versus the ones obtained with the bracketing procedure. In: Wall M, Wild J, eds. Perimetry update 1998/1999. Amsterdam: Kugler Publ, 1999; 51-8.
28. Heijl A, Drance SM. Changes in differential threshold in patients with glaucoma during prolonged perimetry. Br J Ophthalmol 1983; 67: 512-6.
29. Maeda H, Nakamura M. A new rapid perimetry test with Dynamic strategy and a tendency oriented program (TOP) to detect glaucoma. Folia Ophthalmol Jap 1999; 50: 715-20.
30. Morales J, Brown SM. The feasibility of short automated static perimetry in children. Ophthalmology 2001; 108: 157-62.
31. Krakau CET. Visual field testing with reduced sets of test points: A computerized analysis. Doc Ophthalmol 1989; 73: 71-80.
32. González de la Rosa M, Abreu Reyes JA, González Sierra MA. Rapid assessment of the visual field in glaucoma using an analysis based on multiple correlations. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1990; 228: 387-91.
33. Weber J, Diestelhorst M. Perimetric follow-up in glaucoma with a reduced set of test points. Germ J Ophthalmol 1992; 1: 409-14.
34. Wishart PK, Wardrop DRA, Kosmin A. Is visual field evaluation using multiple correlation and linear regressions useful? An evaluation of Delphi perimetry. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1998; 236: 493-500.
35. González de la Rosa M. The Liverpool Delphi evaluation. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1999; 237: 259-61.
36. González de la Rosa M, González Hernández M, Abraldes M, Azuara-Blanco A. Quantification of inter-point topographic correlations of threshold values in glaucomatous visual fields. J Glaucoma 2002; 11: 30-4.