Test-retest variability in glaucoma patients tested with C-20-1 screening-mode Frequency Doubling Technology perimetry

Journal of Glaucoma

Volumn 13, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 273-277

  Brush, Michael B ^a   Chen, Philip P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

FDT; Fluctuation; Glaucoma; Learning effect; Perimetry; Screening

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; DISEASE SEVERITY; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCREENING MODE FREQUENCY DOUBLING TECHNOLOGY PERIMETRY; SCREENING TEST; VISUAL FIELD DEFECT;

AGED; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; LEARNING; MALE; OPTIC NERVE DISEASES; PERIMETRY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 3242681576     PISSN: 10570829     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00061198-200408000-00003     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Quigley HA. Number of people with glaucoma worldwide. Br J Ophthalmol. 1996;80:389-393.
2. Tielsch JM, Sommer A, Katz J, et al. Racial variations in the prevalence of primary open-angle glaucoma: the Baltimore Eye Survey. JAMA. 1991; 266:369-374.
3. Sponsel WE. Tonometry in question: can visual screening tests play a more decisive role in glaucoma diagnosis and management? Surv Ophthalmol. 1989;33:291-300.
4. Jackson C, Bullock J, Pitt M. et al. Screening for glaucoma in a Brisbane general practice: the role of tonometry. Aust NZJ Ophthalmol. 1995;23: 173-178.
5. Kelly DH. Frequency doubling in visual responses. J Opt Soc Am. 1966; 56:1628-1633.
6. Maddess T, Henry GH. Performance of nonlinear visual units in ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Clin Vis Sci. 1992;7:371-383.
7. Johnson CA, Samuels SJ. Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss with frequency-doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997;38: 413-425.
8. Patel SC, Friedman DS, Varadkar P, et al. Algorithm for interpreting the results of frequency doubling pefimetry. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129: 323-327.
9. 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.
10. Paezka JA, Friedman DS, Quigley HA, et al. Diagnostic capabilities of frequency-doubling technology, scanning laser polarimetry, and nerve fiber layer photographs to distinguish glaucomatous damage. Am J Ophthalmol. 2001;131:188-197.
11. Casson R, James B, Rubinstein A, et al. Clinical comparison of frequency doubling technology pefimetry and Humphrey perimetry. Br J Ophthalmol. 2001;85:360-362.
12. Wadood AC, Azuara-Blanco A, Aspinall P, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of frequency-doubling technology, tendency-oriented perimetry, and Humphrey Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm-fast pefimetry in a glaucoma practice. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;133:327-332.
13. Flammer J, Drance SM, Zulauf M. Differential light threshold. Short- and long-term fluctuation in patients with glaucoma, normal controls, and patients with suspected glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1984;102:704-706.
14. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J. Normal variability of static perimetric threshold values across the central visual field. Arch Ophthalmol. 1987; 105:1544-1549.
15. Heijl A, Lindgren A, Lindgren G. Test-retest variability in glaucomatous visual fields. Am J Ophthalmol. 1989;108:130-135.
16. Wemer EB, Krupin T, Adelson A, et al. Effects of patient experience on the results of automated perimetry in glaucoma suspect patients. Ophthalmology. 1990;97:44-48.
17. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J. The effects of perimetric experience in normal subjects. Arch Ophthalmol. 1989;107:81-86.
18. Kulze JC, Stewart WC, Sutherland SE. Factors associated with a learning effect in glaucoma patients using automated perimetry. Acta Ophthalmol. 1990;68:681-686.
19. 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.
20. Adams CW, Bullimore MA, Wall M, et al. Normal aging effects for frequency doubling technology perimetry. Optom Vis Sci. 1999;76:582-587.
21. Anderson AJ, Johnson CA. Effect of dichoptic adaptation on frequency-doubling perimetry. Optom Vis Sci. 2002;79:88-92.
22. Anderson DR. Automated static perimetry. St. Louis: CV Mosby; 1992:91-137.
23. Chen PP, Park RJ. Visual field progression in patients with initially unilateral visual field loss from chronic open angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:1688-1692.
24. Chen PP. Correlation of visual field progression between eyes in patients with chronic open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2002;109:2093-2099.
25. Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study. 2. Visual field test scoring and reliability. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study Investigators. Ophthalmology. 1994;101:1445-1455.
26. Brush MB, Chen PP. Learning effect among perimetric novices with screening C-20-1 Frequency Doubling Technology perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol., forthcoming.
27. Yamada N, Chen PP, Mills RP, et al. Screening for glaucoma with frequency-doubling technology and Damato campimetry. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117:1479-1484.
28. Wall M, Kutzko KE, Chauhan BC. Variability in patients with glaucomatous visual field damage is reduced using size V stimuli. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997;38:426-435.
29. Flammer J, Drance SM, Schulzer M. Covariates of the long-term fluctuation of the differential light threshold. Arch Ophthalmol. 1984;102:880-882.
30. 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.
31. Iester M, Carpis 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.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. Joson PJ, Kamantigue MEG, Chen PP. Learning effects among perimetric novices in Frequency Doubling Technology perimetry. Ophthalmology. 2002;109:757-760.
36. Hart WM Jr, Becker B. The onset and evolution of glaucomatous visual field defects. Ophthalmology. 1982;89:268-279.
37. Kwon YH, Kim CS, Zimmerman MB, et al. Rate of visual field loss and long-term visual outcome in primary open-angle glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2001;132:47-56.
38. Chen PP. Blindness among treated patients with open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:176-180.