Predictive value of Frequency Doubling Technology perimetry for detecting glaucoma in a developing country

Journal of Glaucoma

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 128-134

  Mansberger, Steven L ^a,e   Johnson, Chris A ^a   Cioffi, George A ^a   Choi, Dongseok ^b   Krishnadas, S R ^c   Srinivasan, M ^c   Balamurugan, V ^c   Kim, Usha ^c   Smith, Scott D ^d   Wilkins, John H ^b   Gritz, David C ^f  

^a DEVERS EYE INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Aravind Eye Institute   (India)

^d LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^e DEVERS EYE INSTITUTE   (United States)

^f NONE

Author keywords

Developing country; Glaucoma; India; Optic disc; Perimetry; Screening

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANTERIOR EYE SEGMENT; ARTICLE; BIOMICROSCOPY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEVELOPING COUNTRY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; FREQUENCY DOUBLING TECHNOLOGY PERIMETRY; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; INDIA; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MASS SCREENING; OPHTHALMOSCOPY; OPTIC DISK; PERIMETRY; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; RURAL AREA; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TONOMETRY;

ADULT; AGED; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DEVELOPING COUNTRIES; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; INDIA; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OPTIC DISK; OPTIC NERVE DISEASES; PERIMETRY; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RURAL POPULATION; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TONOMETRY, OCULAR;

EID: 20144364092     PISSN: 10570829     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.ijg.0000151883.07232.54     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Thylefors B, Negrel AD, Pararajasegaram R, et al. Global data on blindness. Bull World Health Organ. 1995;73:115-121.
2. Tielsch JM, Katz J, Singh K, et al. A population-based evaluation of glaucoma screening: the Baltimore Eye Survey. Am J Epidemiol. 1991; 134:1102-1110.
3. Stewart WC, Hunt HH. Threshold variation in automated perimetry. Surv Ophthalmol. 1993;37:353-361.
4. Herse PR. Factors influencing normal perimetric thresholds obtained using the Humphrey Field Analyzer. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1992;33: 611-617.
5. Wood JM, Wild JM, Bullimore MA, et al. Factors affecting the normal perimetric profile derived by automated static threshold LED perimetry. I. Pupil size. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1988;8:26-31.
6. Aung T, Foster PJ, Seah SK, et al. Automated static perimetry: the influence of myopia and its method of correction. Ophthalmology. 2001; 108:290-295.
7. Weinreb RN, Perlman JP The effect of refractive correction on automated perimetric thresholds. Am J Ophthalmol. 1986;101:706-709.
8. Wild JM, Searle AE, Dengler-Harles M, et al. Long-term follow-up of baseline learning and fatigue effects in the automated perimetry of glaucoma and ocular hypertensive patients. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1991; 69:210-216.
9. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J. The effect of perimetric experience in normal subjects. Arch Ophthalmol. 1989;107:81-86.
10. Werner EB, Krupin T, Adelson A, et al. Effect of patient experience on the results of automated perimetry in glaucoma suspect patients [see comments]. Ophthalmology. 1990;97:44-48.
11. Wild JM, Dengler-Harles M, Searle AE, et al. The influence of the learning effect on automated perimetry in patients with suspected glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1989;67:537-545.
12. Autzen T, Work K. The effect of learning and age on short-term fluctuation and mean sensitivity of automated static perimetry. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1990;68:327-330.
13. Kulze JC, Stewart WC, Sutherland SE. Factors associated with a learning effect in glaucoma patients using automated perimetry. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1990;68:681-686.
14. Quigley HA. Identification of glaucoma-related visual field abnormality with the screening protocol of frequency doubling technology. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;125:819-829.
15. Trible JR, Schultz RO, Robinson JC, et al. Accuracy of glaucoma detection with frequency-doubling perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000; 129:740-745.
16. 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.
17. Patel SC, Friedman DS, Varadkar P, et al. Algorithm for interpreting the results of frequency doubling perimetry [In Process Citation]. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129:323-327.
18. Burnstein Y, Ellish NJ, Magbalon M, et al. Comparison of frequency doubling perimetry with Humphrey visual field analysis in a glaucoma practice [In Process Citation]. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129:328-333.
19. Tielsch JM, Sommer A, Witt K, et al. Blindness and visual impairment in an American urban population. The Baltimore Eye Survey. Arch Ophthalmol. 1990;108:286-290.
20. Johnson, C, Wall M, Fingeret M, et al. A Primer for Frequency Doubling Technology Perimetry. Skaneateles, New York, Welch Allyn; 1998.
21. Ferris FL 3rd, Kassoff A, Bresnick GH, et al. New visual acuity charts for clinical research. Am J Ophthalmol. 1982;94:91-96.
22. Chylack LT Jr, Wolfe JK, Singer DM, et al. The Lens Opacities Classification System III. The Longitudinal Study of Cataract Study Group. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993;111:831-836.
23. Ramakrishnan R, Nirmalan PK, Krishnadas R, et al. Glaucoma in a rural population of southern India: the Aravind comprehensive eye survey. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:1484-1490.
24. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159-174.
25. Goodman LA, Kruskal W. Measures of Association for Cross Classifications. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1979:146.
26. Johnson C, Wall M, Fingeret M, et al. A Primer for Frequency Doubling Technology Perimetry. Skaneateles, New York: Welch Allyn; 1998.
27. Dandona L, Dandona R, Srinivas M, et al. Open-angle glaucoma in an urban population in southern India: the Andhra Pradesh eye disease study. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:1702-1709.
28. Jacob A, Thomas R, Koshi SP, et al. Prevalence of primary glaucoma in an urban south Indian population. Indian J Ophthalmol. 1998;46: 81-86.
29. Foster PJ, Buhrmann R, Quigley HA, et al. The definition and classification of glaucoma in prevalence surveys. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86: 238-242.
30. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307-310.
31. Yamada N, Chen PP, Mills RP, et al. Screening for glaucoma with frequency-doubling technology and Damato campimetry. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117:1479-1484.
32. Maddess T, Hemmi JM, James AC. Evidence for spatial aliasing effects in the Y-like cells of the magnocellular visual pathway. Vision Res. 1998; 38:1843-1859.
33. 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;41:1783-1790.
34. Johnson CA. Psychophysical measurement of glaucomatous damage. Surv Ophthalmol. 2001;45(Suppl 3):S313-S318 [discussion S322-324].
35. 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;98:195-199.
36. Mason RP, Kosoko O, Wilson MR, et al. National survey of the prevalence and risk factors of glaucoma in St. Lucia, West Indies. Part 1. Prevalence findings. Ophthalmology. 1989;96:1363-1368.
37. Mansberger SL, Sample PA, Zangwill L, et al. Achromatic and short-wavelength automated perimetry in patients with glaucomatous large cups. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117:1473-1477.
38. Hennekens CH, Buring JE, Mayrent SL. Epidemiology in Medicine. 1st ed. Boston: Little Brown; 1987:337-338.
39. Quigley HA. Current and future approaches to glaucoma screening. J Glaucoma. 1998;7:210-220.