Glaucoma screening: Current trends, economic issues, technology, and challenges

Current Opinion in Ophthalmology

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 142-152

  Nduaguba, Constance ^a   Lee, Richard K ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI MILLER SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Blindness; Glaucoma screening; Vision loss; Vision screening

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATION; AWARENESS; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLOSED ANGLE GLAUCOMA; CORNEA; CORNEA THICKNESS; DISEASE COURSE; DISEASE MODEL; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; EARLY INTERVENTION; ECONOMIC ASPECT; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FOLLOW UP; FREQUENCY ANALYSIS; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; GENETIC SCREENING; GLAUCOMA; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CENTER; HEALTH EDUCATION; HUMAN; IMAGING; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; LAW; MASS SCREENING; MEASUREMENT; NERVE FIBER; OPTIC DISK; OPTIC NERVE DISEASE; PARAMETERS OF MEASUREMENT AND ANALYSIS; PATHOGENESIS; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PERIMETRY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROPHYLAXIS; PUBLIC HEALTH; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RETINA MACULA LUTEA; RETINA NERVE CELL; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SOCIAL ASPECT; TECHNOLOGY; TONOMETRY; VISION; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL IMPAIRMENT;

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES, OPHTHALMOLOGICAL; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 33646902382     PISSN: 10408738     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.icu.0000193088.75432.c9     Document Type: Review

References (120)

1. Congdon N, O'Colmain B, Klaver CC, et al. Causes and prevalence of visual impairment among adults in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol 2004; 122:477-485. The most current assessment of the incidence of blindness in the United States.
2. Pizzarello L, Abiose A, Ffytche T, et al. VISION 2020: The Right to Sight: a global initiative to eliminate avoidable blindness. Arch Ophthalmol 2004; 122:615-620.
3. Quigley HA. Number of people with glaucoma worldwide. Br J Ophthalmol 1996; 80:389-393.
4. de Voogd S, Ikram MK, Wolfs RC, et al. Incidence of open-angle glaucoma in a general elderly population: the Rotterdam Study. Ophthalmology 2005; 112:1487-1493.
5. Harasymowycz PJ, Papamatheakis DG, Fansi AK, et al. Validity of screening for glaucomatous optic nerve damage using confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (Heidelberg Retina Tomograph II) in high-risk populations: a pilot study. Ophthalmology 2005; 112:2164-2171.
6. Friedman DS, Wolfs RC, O'Colmain BJ, et al. Prevalence of open-angle glaucoma among adults in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol 2004; 122:532-538. The most current assessment of the prevalence of glaucoma in the United States.
7. Grodum K, Heijl A, Bengtsson B. A comparison of glaucoma patients identified through mass screening and in routine clinical practice. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2002; 80:627-631.
8. Gohdes DM, Balamurugan A, Larsen BA, et al. Age-related eye diseases: an emerging challenge for public health professionals. Prev Chronic Dis July 2005; 2 (3):A17.
9. Quigley HA, Park CK, Tracey PA, et al. Community screening for eye disease by laypersons: the Hoffberger program. Am J Ophthalmol 2002; 133:386-392.
10. Thylefors B, Negrel AD. The global impact of glaucoma. Bull World Health Organ 1994; 72:323-326.
11. 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.
12. Rotchford AP, Kirwan JF, Muller MA, et al. Temba glaucoma study: a population-based cross-sectional survey in urban South Africa. Ophthalmology 2003; 110:376-382.
13. Buhrmann RR, Quigley HA, Barron Y, et al. Prevalence of glaucoma in a rural East African population. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000; 41:40-48.
14. Dielemans I, Vingerling JR, Wolfs RC, et al. The prevalence of primary open-angle glaucoma in a population-based study in The Netherlands. The Rotterdam Study. Ophthalmology 1994; 101:1851-1855.
15. Quigley HA, West SK, Rodriguez J, et al. The prevalence of glaucoma in a population-based study of Hispanic subjects: Proyecto VER. Arch Ophthalmol 2001; 119:1819-1826.
16. Ntim-Amponsah CT, Amoaku WM, Ofosu-Amaah S, et al. Prevalence of glaucoma in an African population. Eye 2004; 18:491-497.
17. Leske MC, Connell AM, Schachat AP, et al. The Barbados Eye Study. Prevalence of open angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1994; 112:821-829.
18. 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.
19. Varma R, Ying-Lai M, Francis BA, et al. Prevalence of open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension in Latinos: the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Ophthalmology 2004; 111:1439-1448.
20. 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.
21. Wolfs RC, Klaver CC, Ramrattan RS, et al. Genetic risk of primary open-angle glaucoma. Population-based familial aggregation study. Arch Ophthalmol 1998; 116:1640-1645.
22. Klein BE, Klein R, Lee KE. Heritability of risk factors for primary open-angle glaucoma: the Beaver Dam Eye Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004; 45:59-62.
23. Chang TC, Congdon NG, Wojciechowski R, et al. Determinants and heritability of intraocular pressure and cup-to-disc ratio in a defined older population. Ophthalmology 2005; 112:1186-1191.
24. Duggal P, Klein AP, Lee KE, et al. A genetic contribution to intraocular pressure: the beaver dam eye study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005; 46:555-560.
25. Charlesworth JC, Dyer TD, Stankovich JM, et al. Linkage to 10q22 for maximum intraocular pressure and 1p32 for maximum cup-to-disc ratio in an extended primary open-angle glaucoma pedigree. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005; 46:3723-3729.
26. Quigley HA. New paradigms in the mechanisms and management of glaucoma. Eye 2005; 19:1241-1248.
27. Foster PJ. The epidemiology of primary angle closure and associated glaucomatous optic neuropathy. Semin Ophthalmol 2002; 17:50-58.
28. Foster PJ, Johnson GJ. Glaucoma in China: how big is the problem? Br J Ophthalmol 2001; 85:1277-1282.
29. Quigley HA, Congdon NG, Friedman DS. Glaucoma in China (and worldwide): changes in established thinking will decrease preventable blindness. Br J Ophthalmol 2001; 85:1271-1272.
30. Department of Veterans Affairs. Screening for Glaucoma in the Primary Care Setting. May 2000.
31. Fleming C, Whitlock EP, Beil T, et al. Screening for primary open-angle glaucoma in the primary care setting: an update for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Fam Med 2005; 3:167-170.
32. Guirguis-Blake J. Rationale for the USPSTF recommendation on screening for glaucoma. Am Fam Physician 2005; 72 (7):1184-1187.
33. American Academy of Ophthalmology. Preferred Practice Pattern: Primary Open Angle Glaucoma Suspect. San Francisco: AAO; 2000.
34. Kobelt-Nguyen G, Gerdtham UG, Alm A. Costs of treating primary open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension: a retrospective, observational two-year chart review of newly diagnosed patients in Sweden and the United States. J Glaucoma 1998; 7:95-104.
35. Void SD, Riggs WL, Jackimiec J. Cost analysis of glaucoma medications: a 3-year review. J Glaucoma 2002; 11:354-358.
36. Denis P, Lafuma A, Berdeaux G. Medical predictive factors of glaucoma treatment costs. J Glaucoma 2004; 13:283-290.
37. Kobelt G. Health economics, economic evaluation, and glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2002; 11:531-539.
38. National Eye Institute PBA. Vision Problems in the U.S.: Prevalence of Adult Vision Impairment and Age Related Eye Disease in America. U.S. National Institutes of Health; 2002.
39. Iskedjian M, Walker J, Vicente C, et al. Cost of glaucoma in Canada: analyses based on visual field and physician's assessment. J Glaucoma 2003; 12:456-462.
40. Michelson G, Groh MJ. Screening models for glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2001; 12:105-111.
41. U.S. Depertment of Health and Human Services. Vision and Hearing. Healthy People 2010. Washington: DC; 2000.
42. American Academy of Ophthalmology. Preferred Practice Pattern: Primary Open Angle Glaucoma. San Francisco: AAO; 2000.
43. Ellish NJ, Higginbotham EJ. Differences between screening sites in a glaucoma screening program. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2002; 9:225-237.
44. 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.
45. Mansberger SL, Romero FC, Smith NH, et al. Causes of visual impairment and common eye problems in Northwest American Indians and Alaska Natives. Am J Public Health 2005; 95:881-886.
46. 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.
47. Mitchell P, Smith W, Chey T, et al. Open-angle glaucoma and diabetes: the Blue Mountains eye study, Australia. Ophthalmology 1997; 104:712-718.
48. Kass MA, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: a randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2002; 120:701-713.
49. Whitacre MM, Stein R. Sources of error with use of Goldmann-type tonometers. Surv Ophthalmol 1993; 38:1-30.
50. Horowitz GS, Byles J, Lee J, et al. Comparison of the Tono-Pen and Goldmann tonometer for measuring intraocular pressure in patients with glaucoma. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2004; 32:584-589.
51. Recep OF, Hasiripi H, Cagil N, et al. Relation between corneal thickness and intraocular pressure measurement by noncontact and applanation tonometry. J Cataract Refract Surg 2001; 27:1787-1791.
52. Kaufmann C, Bachmann LM, Thiel MA. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with goldmann applanation tonometry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004; 45:3118-3121.
53. Siganos DS, Papastergiou GI, Moedas C. Assessment of the Pascal dynamic contour tonometer in monitoring intraocular pressure in unoperated eyes and eyes after LASIK. J Cataract Refract Surg 2004; 30:746-751.
54. Quigley HA. Current and future approaches to glaucoma screening. J Glaucoma 1998; 7:210-220.
55. Yogesan K, Constable IJ, Barry CJ, et al. Evaluation of a portable fundus camera for use in the teleophthalmologic diagnosis of glaucoma. J Glaucoma 1999; 8:297-301.
56. Maberley D, Morris A, Hay D, et al. A comparison of digital retinal image quality among photographers with different levels of training using a non-mydriatic fundus camera. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2004; 11:191-197.
57. Maberley D, Walker H, Koushik A, et al. Screening for diabetic retinopathy in James Bay, Ontario: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Can Med Assoc J 2003; 168:160-164.
58. Kawasaki S, Ito S, Satoh S, et al. Use of telemedicine in periodic screening of diabetic retinopathy. Telemed J E Health 2003; 9:235-239.
59. Li HK, Tang RA, Oschner K, et al. Telemedicine screening of glaucoma. Telemed J 1999; 5:283-290.
60. Sommer A, Katz J, Quigley HA, et al. Clinically detectable nerve fiber atrophy precedes the onset of glaucomatous field loss. Arch Ophthalmol 1991; 109:77-83.
61. Wollstein G, Garway-Heath DF, Fontana L, et al. Identifying early glaucomatous changes. Comparison between expert clinical assessment of optic disc photographs and confocal scanning ophthalmoscopy. Ophthalmology 2000; 107:2272-2277.
62. Knighton RW, Huang X, Zhou Q. Microtubule contribution to the reflectance of the retinal nerve fiber layer. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1998; 39:189-193.
63. Medeiros FA, Zangwill LM, Bowd C, et al. Fourier analysis of scanning laser polarimetry measurements with variable corneal compensation in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003; 44:2606-2612.
64. Weinreb RN, Bowd C, Zangwill LM. Glaucoma detection using scanning laser polarimetry with variable corneal polarization compensation. Arch Ophthalmol 2003; 121:218-224.
65. Medeiros FA, Zangwill LM, Bowd C, et al. Comparison of the GDx VCC scanning laser polarimeter, HRT II confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope, and Stratus OCT optical coherence tomograph for the detection of glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2004; 122:827-837. Representative of the type of research that is needed to compare which permutations of screening technologies will make community vision screening most effective.
66. Reus NJ, Lemij HG. Diagnostic accuracy of the GDx VCC for glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2004; 111:1860-1865.
67. Mohammadi K, Bowd C, Weinreb RN, et al. Retinal nerve fiber layer thickness measurements with scanning laser polarimetry predict glaucomatous visual field loss. Am J Ophthalmol 2004; 138:592-601.
68. Munkwitz S, Funk J, Loeffler KU, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of scanning laser polarimetry using the GDx. Br J Ophthalmol 2004; 88:1142-1145.
69. Medeiros FA, Zangwill LM, Bowd C, et al. Use of progressive glaucomatous optic disk change as the reference standard for evaluation of diagnostic tests in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2005; 139:1010-1018.
70. Kanamori A, Nakamura M, Escano MF, et al. Evaluation of the glaucomatous damage on retinal nerve fiber layer thickness measured by optical coherence tomography. Am J Ophthalmol 2003; 135:513-520.
71. Zangwill LM, Bowd C, Berry CC, et al. Discriminating between normal and glaucomatous eyes using the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph, GDx Nerve Fiber Analyzer, and Optical Coherence Tomograph. Arch Ophthalmol 2001; 119:985-993.
72. Budenz DL, Michael A, Chang RT, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of the StratusOCT for perimetric glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2005; 112:3-9.
73. Wollstein G, Ishikawa H, Wang J, et al. Comparison of three optical coherence tomography scanning areas for detection of glaucomatous damage. Am J Ophthalmol 2005; 139:39-43.
74. Nouri-Mahdavi K, Hoffman D, Tannenbaum DP, et al. Identifying early glaucoma with optical coherence tomography. Am J Ophthalmol 2004; 137:228-235.
75. Wollstein G, Schuman JS, Price LL, et al. Optical coherence tomography longitudinal evaluation of retinal nerve fiber layer thickness in glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2005; 123:464-470.
76. Delgado MF, Nguyen NT, Cox TA, et al. Automated perimetry: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 2002; 109:2362-2374.
77. 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 Experiment Ophthalmol 2002; 30:8-14.
78. 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. A good example of the limitations of real-world glaucoma screening.
79. Tatemichi M, Nakano T, Tanaka K, et al. Performance of glaucoma mass screening with only a visual field test using frequency-doubling technology perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol 2002; 134:529-537.
80. Quigley HA. Identification of glaucoma-related visual field abnormality with the screening protocol of frequency doubling technology. Am J Ophthalmol 1998; 125:819-829.
81. 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.
82. Ventura LM, Porciatti V, Ishida K, et al. Pattern electroretinogram abnormality and glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2005; 112:10-19.
83. Realini T, Lai MQ, Barber L. Impact of diabetes on glaucoma screening using frequency-doubling perimetry. Ophthalmology 2004; 111:2133-2136.
84. Alward WL, Fingert JH, Coote MA, et al. Clinical features associated with mutations in the chromosome 1 open-angle glaucoma gene (GLC1A). N Engl J Med 1998; 338:1022-1027.
85. Alward WL, Kwon YH, Khanna CL, et al. Variations in the myocilin gene in patients with open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2002; 120:1189-1197.
86. Stone EM, Fingert JH, Alward WL, et al. Identification of a gene that causes primary open angle glaucoma. Science 1997; 275:668-670.
87. Sripriya S, Uthra S, Sangeetha R, et al. Low frequency of myocilin mutations in Indian primary open-angle glaucoma patients. Clin Genet 2004; 65:333-337.
88. Aldred MA, Baumber L, Hill A, et al. Low prevalence of MYOC mutations in UK primary open-angle glaucoma patients limits the utility of genetic testing. Hum Genet 2004; 115:428-431.
89. Rezaie T, Child A, Hitchings R, et al. Adult-onset primary open-angle glaucoma caused by mutations in optineurin. Science 2002; 295:1077-1079.
90. Wiggs JL, Auguste J, Allingham RR, et al. Lack of association of mutations in optineurin with disease in patients with adult-onset primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2003; 121:1181-1183.
91. Aung T, Rezaie T, Okada K, et al. Clinical features and course of patients with glaucoma with the E50K mutation in the optineurin gene. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005; 46:2816-2822.
92. Nemesure B, Jiao X, He Q, et al. A genome-wide scan for primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG): the Barbados Family Study of Open-Angle Glaucoma. Hum Genet 2003; 112:600-609.
93. Melki R, Colomb E, Lefort N, et al. CYP1B1 mutations in French patients with early-onset primary open-angle glaucoma. J Med Genet 2004; 41:647-651.
94. Willoughby CE, Chan LL, Herd S, et al. Defining the pathogenicity of optineurin in juvenile open-angle glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004; 45:3122-3130.
95. Woodroffe A, Krafchak CM, Fuse N, et al. Ordered subset analysis supports a glaucoma locus at GLC1I on chromosome 15 in families with earlier adult age at diagnosis. Exp. Eye Res. 2006, in press. doi:10.1016/j.exer.2005.10.008.
96. Allingham RR, Wiggs JL, Hauser ER, et al. Early adult-onset POAG linked to 15q11-13 using ordered subset analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005; 46:2002-2005.
97. Baird PN, Foote SJ, Mackey DA, et al. Evidence for a novel glaucoma locus at chromosome 3p21-22. Hum Genet 2005; 117:249-257.
98. Aung T, Okada K, Poinoosawmy D, et al. The phenotype of normal tension glaucoma patients with and without OPA1 polymorphisms. Br J Ophthalmol 2003; 87:149-152.
99. Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Brandt JD, et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2002; 120:714-720.
100. Medeiros FA, Sample PA, Weinreb RN. Corneal thickness measurements and frequency doubling technology perimetry abnormalities in ocular hypertensive eyes. Ophthalmology 2003; 110:1903-1908.
101. Medeiros FA, Sample PA, Zangwill LM, et al. Corneal thickness as a risk factor for visual field loss in patients with preperimetric glaucomatous optic neuropathy. Am J Ophthalmol 2003; 136:805-813.
102. Herndon LW, Weizer JS, Stinnett SS. Central corneal thickness as a risk factor for advanced glaucoma damage. Arch Ophthalmol 2004; 122:17-21.
103. Kim JW, Chen PP. Central corneal pachymetry and visual field progression in patients with open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2004; 111:2126-2132.
104. Zeppieri M, Brusini P, Miglior S. Corneal thickness and functional damage in patients with ocular hypertension. Eur J Ophthalmol 2005; 15:196-201.
105. Luce DA. Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005; 31:156-162.
106. Gazzard G, Friedman DS, Devereux JG, et al. A prospective ultrasound biomicroscopy evaluation of changes in anterior segment morphology after laser iridotomy in Asian eyes. Ophthalmology 2003; 110:630-638.
107. Tello C, Tran HV, Liebmann J, et al. Angle closure: classification, concepts, and the role of ultrasound biomicroscopy in diagnosis and treatment. Semin Ophthalmol 2002; 17:69-78.
108. Radhakrishnan S, Goldsmith J, Huang D, et al. Comparison of optical coherence tomography and ultrasound biomicroscopy for detection of narrow anterior chamber angles. Arch Ophthalmol 2005; 123:1053-1059.
109. Guibert R, Leduc N, Fournier P, et al. What factors determine whether individuals found to have hypercholesterolaemia at mass screening accept advice to visit their physician. Public Health 1999; 113:105-110.
110. Kaplan RC, Bhalodkar NC, Brown EJ Jr. et al. Race, ethnicity, and sociocultural characteristics predict noncompliance with lipid-lowering medications. Prev Med 2004; 39:1249-1255.
111. Raji MA, Kuo YF, Salazar JA, et al. Ethnic differences in antihypertensive medication use in the elderly. Ann Pharmacother 2004; 38:209-214.
112. Friedman DS, Cramer J, Quigley H. A more proactive approach is needed in glaucoma care. Arch Ophthalmol 2005; 123:1134-1135. Great editorial on what is needed for effective glaucoma prevention and care.
113. Taylor SA, Galbraith SM, Mills RP. Causes of non-compliance with drug regimens in glaucoma patients: a qualitative study. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 2002; 18:401-409.
114. Lau JT, Lee V, Fan D, et al. Knowledge about cataract, glaucoma, and age related macular degeneration in the Hong Kong Chinese population. Br J Ophthalmol 2002; 86:1080-1084.
115. Saw SM, Gazzard G, Friedman D, et al. Awareness of glaucoma, and health beliefs of patients suffering primary acute angle closure. Br J Ophthalmol 2003; 87:446-449.
116. Leung CK, Chan WM, Ko CY, et al. Visualization of anterior chamber angle dynamics using optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology 2005; 112:980-984.
117. 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.
118. 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.
119. Horn FK, Nguyen NX, Mardin CY, et al. Combined use of frequency doubling perimetry and polarimetric measurements of retinal nerve fiber layer in glaucoma detection. Am J Ophthalmol 2003; 135:160-168.
120. Robin TA, Muller A, Rait J, et al. Performance of community-based glaucoma screening using Frequency Doubling Technology and Heidelberg Retinal Tomography. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2005; 12:167-178.