Detecting glaucoma with frequency-doubling technology perimetry: A comparison between N-30 and C-20 screening programs

Journal of Glaucoma

Volumn 14, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 485-491

  Fogagnolo, Paolo ^a   Mazzolani, Fabio ^a   Rossetti, Luca ^a   Orzalesi, Nicola ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

^b Ospedale San Paolo   (Italy)

Author keywords

Frequency doubling technology perimetry; Glaucoma; Nasal step; Screening; Standard automated perimetry

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED PERIMETRY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC APPROACH ROUTE; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; MEDICAL RECORD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SAMPLE SIZE; SCREENING TEST;

AGED; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA, OPEN-ANGLE; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERIMETRY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VISION SCREENING;

EID: 27944456830     PISSN: 10570829     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.ijg.0000184833.85912.2a     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Coleman AL. Glaucoma. Lancet. 1999;354:1803-1810.
2. Mitchell P, Smith W, Attebo K, et al. Prevalence of open-angle glaucoma in Australia. The Blue Mountains Eye Study. Ophthalmology. 1996;103:1661-1669.
3. Wensor MD, McCarty CA, Stanislavsky YL, et al. The prevalence of glaucoma in the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project. Ophthalmology. 1998;105:733-739.
4. Jackson C, Bullock J, Pitt M, et al. Screening for glaucoma in a Brisbane general practice - the role of tonometry. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol. 1995;23:173-178.
5. Javitt JC. Preventing blindness in Americans: the need for eye health education. Surv Ophthalmol. 1995;40:41-44.
6. Sponsel WE, Ritch R, Stamper R, et al. Prevent Blindness America visual field screening study. The Prevent Blindness America Glaucoma Advisory Committee. Am J Ophthalmol. 1995;120:699-708.
7. Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, et al. Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:1268-1279.
8. Iwasaki A, Sugita M. Glaucoma Screening Project (GSP) Study Group. Performance of glaucoma mass screening with only a visual field test using frequency-doubling technology perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002; 134:529-537.
9. Sponsel WE. Tonometry in question: can visual screening tests play a more decisive role in glaucoma diagnosis and management? Surv Ophthalmol. 1989;33(Suppl):291-300.
10. Crick RP. Epidemiology and screening of open-angle glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 1994;5:3-9.
11. Wang F, Tielsch JM, Ford DE, et al. Evaluation of screening schemes for eye disease in a primary care setting. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1998;5:69-82.
12. Harper R, Reeves B. The sensitivity and specificity of direct ophthalmoscopic optic disc assessment in screening for glaucoma: a multivariate analysis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2000;238:949-955.
13. Michelson G, Groh MJ. Screening models for glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2001;12:105-111.
14. Johnson CA, Samuels SJ. Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss with frequency-doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997;38:413-425.
15. Johnson CA. Recent developments in automated perimetry in glaucoma diagnosis and management. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2002;13:77-84.
16. Soliman MA, de Jong LA, Ismaeil AA, et al. Standard achromatic perimetry, short wavelength automated perimetry, and frequency doubling technology for detection of glaucoma damage. Ophthalmology. 2002;109:444-454.
17. Iester M, Altieri M, Vittone P, et al. Detection of glaucomatous visual field defect by nonconventional perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;135:35-39.
18. Miglior S, Rossetti L, Brigatti L, et al. Reproducibility of retinal nerve fiber layer evaluation by dynamic scanning laser ophthalmoscopy. Am J Ophthalmol. 1994;118:16-23.
19. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study Investigators. Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study. 2. Visual Field Test Scoring and Reliability. Ophthalmology. 1994;101:1445-1455.
20. Hodapp E, Parrish RK II, Anderson DR. Clinical Decisions in Glaucoma. St. Louis: CV Mosby; 1993:84-126.
21. Medeiros FA, Sample PA, Weinreb RN. Frequency doubling technology perimetry abnormalities as predictors of glaucomatous visual field loss. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;137:863-871.
22. Brush MB, Chen PP. Test-retest variability in glaucoma patients tested with C-20-1 screening-mode frequency doubling technology perimetry. J Glaucoma. 2004;13:273-277.
23. Brush MB, Chen PP. Learning effect among perimetric novices with screening C-20-1 frequency doubling technology perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;137:551-552.
24. Joson PJ, Kamantigue ME, Chen PP. Learning effects among perimetric novices in frequency doubling technology perimetry. Ophthalmology. 2002;109:757-760.
25. 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.
26. Horani A, Frenkel S, Yahalom C, et al. The learning effect in visual field testing of healthy subjects using frequency doubling technology. J Glaucoma. 2002;11:511-516.
27. Iester M, Capris P, Pandolfo A, et al. Learning effect, short-term fluctuation, and long-term fluctuation in frequency doubling technique. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;130:160-164.
28. Matsuo H, Tomita G, Suzuki Y, et al. Learning effect and measurement variability in frequency-doubling technology perimetry in chronic open-angle glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2002;11:467-473.
29. Spry PG, Johnson CA, McKendrick AM, et al. Variability components of standard automated perimetry and frequency-doubling technology perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42:1404-1410.
30. Fujimoto N, Minowa K, Miyauchi O, et al. Learning effect for frequency doubling perimetry in patients with glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;133:269-270.
31. Burnstein Y, Ellish NJ, Magbalon M, et al. Comparison of frequency doubling perimetry with humphrey visual field analysis in a glaucoma practice. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129:328-333.
32. 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 [discussion 199-202].
33. Detry-Morel M, Zeyen T, Kestelyn P, et al. Screening for glaucoma in a general population with the non-mydriatic fundus camera and the frequency doubling perimeter. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2004;14:387-393.
34. Mansberger SL, Johnson CA, Cioffi GA, et al. Predictive Value of Frequency Doubling Technology Perimetry for Detecting Glaucoma in a Developing Country. J Glaucoma. 2005;14:128-134.
35. Tatemichi M, Nakano T, Tanaka K, et al. Laterality of the performance of glaucoma mass screening using frequency-doubling technology. J Glaucoma. 2003;12:221-225.
36. Allen CS, Sponsel WE, Trigo Y, et al. Comparison of the frequency doubling technology screening algorithm and the Humphrey 24-2 SITA-FAST in a large eye screening. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2002;30:8-14.
37. Quigley HA. Identification of glaucoma-related visual field abnormality with the screening protocol of frequency doubling technology. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;125:819-829.
38. Horn FK, Wakili N, Junemann AM, et al. Testing for glaucoma with frequency-doubling perimetry in normals, ocular hypertensives, and glaucoma patients. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2002;240:658-665.
39. Patel SC, Friedman DS, Varadkar P, et al. Algorithm for interpreting the results of frequency doubling perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129:323-327.
40. Thomas R, Bhat S, Muliyil JP, et al. Frequency doubling perimetry in glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2002;11:46-50.
41. Martin L, Wanger P, Vancea L, et al. Concordance of high-pass resolution perimetry and frequency-doubling technology perimetry results in glaucoma: no support for selective ganglion cell damage. J Glaucoma. 2003;12:40-44.
42. Bayer AU, Maag KP, Erb C. Detection of optic neuropathy in glaucomatous eyes with normal standard visual fields using a test battery of short-wavelength automated perimetry and pattern electroretinography. Ophthalmology. 2002;109:1350-1361.
43. Bowd C, Zangwill LM, Berry CC, et al. Detecting early glaucoma by assessment of retinal nerve fiber layer thickness and visual function. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42:1993-2003.
44. Landers JA, Goldberg I, Graham SL. Comparison of clinical optic disc assessment with tests of early visual field loss. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2002;30:338-342.
45. 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.
46. Delgado MF, Nguyen NT, Cox TA, et al. Automated perimetry: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2002;109:2362-2374.
47. Trible JR, Schultz RO, Robinson JC, et al. Accuracy of glaucoma detection with frequency-doubling perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129:740-745.
48. Cello KE, Nelson-Quigg JM, Johnson CA. Frequency doubling technology perimetry for detection of glaucomatous visual field loss. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129:314-322.