The reliability of Frequency-Doubling perimetry in young children

Ophthalmology

Volumn 111, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 435-439

  Blumenthal, Eytan Z ^a   Haddad, Amir ^a   Horani, Amjad ^a   Anteby, Irene ^a  

^a HADASSAH HEBREW UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; AGE DETERMINATION; ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; CHILD; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; EVALUATION; FIXATION FAILURE; FREQUENCY DOUBLING TECHNOLOGY; FREQUENCY MODULATION; HUMAN; NORMAL HUMAN; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RATING SCALE; RELIABILITY; VISION TEST; VISUAL FIELD;

ADOLESCENT; AGE FACTORS; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PERIMETRY; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RANDOM ALLOCATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 1442324345     PISSN: 01616420     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2003.06.018     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Wang F., Tielsch J.M., Ford D.E., et al. Evaluation of screening schemes for eye disease in a primary care setting. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 5:1998;69-82.
2. Safran A.B., Laffi G.L., Bullinger A., et al. Feasibility of automated visual field examination in children between 5 and 8 years of age. Br J Ophthalmol. 80:1996;515-518.
3. Kelly D. Frequency doubling in visual responses. J Opt Sc Am. 56:1966;1628-1633.
4. Kelly D.H. Nonlinear visual responses to flickering sinusoidal gratings. J Opt Soc Am. 71:1981;1051-1055.
5. Maddess T., Henry G. Performance of nonlinear visual units in ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Clin Vis Sci. 7:1992;371-383.
6. Johnson C.A., Samuels S.J. Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss with frequency-doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 38:1997;413-425.
7. Quigley H.A., Sanchez R.M., Dunkelberger G.R., et al. Chronic glaucoma selectively damages large optic nerve fibers. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 28:1987;913-920.
8. Quigley H.A., Dunkelberger G.R., Green W.R. Chronic human glaucoma causing selectively greater loss of large optic nerve fibers. Ophthalmology. 95:1988;357-363.
9. Alward W.L. Frequency doubling technology perimetry for the detection of glaucomatous visual field loss. Am J Ophthalmol. 129:2000;376-378.
10. Casson R., James B., Rubinstein A., Ali H. Clinical comparison of frequency doubling technology perimetry and Humphrey perimetry. Br J Ophthalmol. 85:2001;360-362.
11. Ito A., Kawabata H., Fujimoto N., Adachi-Usami E. Effect of myopia on frequency-doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 42:2001;1107-1110.
12. Quinn G.E., Fea A.M., Minguini N. Visual fields in 4- to 10-year-old children using Goldmann and double-arc perimeters. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 28:1991;314-319.
13. Lakowski R., Aspinall P.A. Static perimetry in young children. Vision Res. 9:1969;305-311.
14. Mutlukan E., Damato B.E. Computerised perimetry with moving and steady fixation in children. Eye. 7:1993;554-561.
15. Lowe C.F., Beasty A., Bentall R.P. The role of verbal behavior in human learning infant performance on fixed-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 39:1983;157-164.
16. Gonzalez de la Rosa M., Pareja A. Influence of the "fatigue effect" on the mean deviation measurement in perimetry. Eur J Ophthalmol. 7:1997;29-34.
17. Morales J., Brown S.M. The feasibility of short automated static perimetry in children. Ophthalmology. 108:2001;157-162.
18. Asman P., Heijl A. Glaucoma Hemifield Test. Automated visual field evaluation. Arch Ophthalmol. 110:1992;812-819.
19. Khong J.J., Dimitrov P.N., Rait J., McCarty C.A. Can the specificity of the FDT for glaucoma be improved by confirming abnormal results? J Glaucoma. 10:2001;199-202.
20. Sample P.A., Bosworth C.F., Blumenthal E.Z., et al. Visual function-specific perimetry for indirect comparison of different ganglion cell populations in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 41:2000;1783-1790.
21. Quigley H.A. Identification of glaucoma-related visual field abnormality with the screening protocol of frequency doubling technology. Am J Ophthalmol. 125:1998;819-829.
22. Burnstein Y., Ellish N.J., Magbalon M., Higginbotham E.J. Comparison of frequency doubling perimetry with Humphrey visual field analysis in a glaucoma practice. Am J Ophthalmol. 129:2000;328-333.
23. Horani A., Frenkel S., Yahalom C., et al. The learning effect in visual field testing of healthy subjects using frequency doubling technology. J Glaucoma. 11:2002;511-516.