Diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility of tendency oriented perimetry in glaucoma

European Journal of Ophthalmology

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 259-267

  Gonzalez De La Rosa, Manuel ^a,e   Gonzalez Hernandez, M ^a   Garcia Feijoo, J ^b   Morales, J ^c   Azuara Blanco, A ^d  

^a HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIO DE CANARIAS   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSIDAD COMPLUTENSE DE MADRID   (Spain)

^c TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^e NONE   (Spain)

Author keywords

Diagnosis; Glaucoma; Perimetry; Visual field

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; CALCULATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DISEASE SEVERITY; DISEASE SIMULATION; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FATIGUE; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REPRODUCIBILITY; VISUAL THRESHOLD;

EID: 33745025018     PISSN: 11206721     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/112067210601600211     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Wadood AC, Azuara-Blanco A, Aspinall P, Taguri A, King AJ. Sensitivity and specificity of frequency-doubling technology, tendency-oriented perimetry, and Humphrey Swedish interactive threshold algorithm-fast perimetry in a glaucoma practice. Am J Ophthalmol 2002; 133: 327-32.
2. Morales J, Brown SM. The feasibility of short automated static perimetry in children. Ophthalmology 2001; 108: 157-62.
3. Gonzalez de la Rosa M, Gonzalez Hernandez M, Abraldes M, Azuara-Blanco A. Quantification of inter-point topographic correlations of threshold values in glaucomatous visual fields. J Glaucoma 2002; 11: 30-4.
4. Gonzalez de la Rosa M, Martinez A, Sanchez M, Mesa C, Cordoves L, Losada M. Accuracy of the tendency oriented perimetry (TOP) in the Octopus 1-2-3 perimeter. In: Wall M, Wild J, eds. Perimetry update 1996/1997. Amsterdam: Kugler, 1997; 119-23.
5. Lachkar Y, Barrault O, Lefrancois A, Demailly P. Rapid tendency oriented perimeter (TOP) with the Octopus visual field analyzer. J Fr Ophtalmol 1998; 21: 180-4.
6. Takada S, Matsumoto C, Okuyama S, Iwagaki A, Otori T. Comparative evaluation of four strategies (normal, 2level, dynamic, TOP) using the automated perimeter Octopus 1-2-3. In: Wall M, Wild J, eds. Perimetry update 1998/1999. Amsterdam: Kugler, 1999; 35-41.
7. Morales J, Weitzman M, Gonzalez de la Rosa M. A preliminary comparison between tendency oriented perimetry (TOP) and traditional threshold perimetry. Ophthalmology 2000; 107: 134-42.
8. Gonzalez de la Rosa M, Morales J, Dannheim F, et al. Multicenter evaluation of tendency oriented perimetry (TOP) using the G1 grid. Eur J Ophthalmol 2003; 13: 32-41.
9. Gonzalez de la Rosa M, Martinez Pinero A, Gonzalez Hernandez M. Reproducibility of the TOP algorithm results versus the ones obtained with the Bracketing procedure. In: Wall M, Wild J, eds. Perimetry update 1998/1999. Amsterdam: Kugler, 1999; 51-8.
10. Gonzalez de la Rosa M, Losada MJ, Serrano M, Morales J. G1-tendency oriented perimetry (TOP): introduction and comparison with G1-standard bracketing. In: Wall M, Wild J, eds. Perimetry update 1998/1999. Amsterdam: Kugler, 1999; 43-9.
11. Horikoshi N, Osako M, Goto H, Tamura Y, Okano T. Clinical evaluation of tendency oriented perimetry in Octopus perimeter. Jpn J Clin Ophthalmol 1999; 53: 889-93.
12. Maeda H, Nakaura M, Negi A. New perimetric threshold test algorithm with dynamic strategy and tendency oriented perimetry (TOP) in glaucomatous eyes. Eye 2000; 5: 747-51.
13. Anderson AJ. Spatial resolution of the tendency-oriented perimetry algorithm. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003; 44: 1962-8.
14. Flammer J. The concept of visual field indices. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1986; 224: 389-92.
15. Caprioli J, Zulauf M. The relationship of optic nerve fiber layer parameters with visual field loss in glaucoma. In: Mills P, Heijl A, eds. Perimetry update 1990/1991. Amsterdam: Kugler, 1991; 9-14.
16. Damms T, Dannheim F, Ahlers S. A visual field index for nerve fiber bundle defects. In: Mills P, ed. Perimetry update 1992/1993. Amsterdam: Kugler, 1993; 9-13.
17. Kass MA, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study I. Arch Ophthalmol 2002; 120: 701-13.
18. Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Brandt JD, et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study II. Arch Ophthalmol 2002; 120: 714-20.
19. Fankhauser F, Fankhauser F, Larsen SE, Cruz-Orive LM. Fluctuations of visual field interpretation related to cluster and scotoma analysis by one interpreter. Ger J Ophthalmol 1994; 3: 43-7.
20. Asman P, Heijl A. Glaucoma hemifield test. Automated visual field evaluation. Arch Ophthalmol 1992; 110: 812-9.
21. Fabre K, Michiels I, Zeyen T. The sensitivity and specificity of TOR FDP and GDX in screening for early glaucoma. Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol 2000; 275: 17-23.
22. Gonzalez de la Rosa M, Arteaga V, Fernández-Baca G, Gonzalez-Hernandez M. Glaucoma diagnosis using tendency oriented perimetry. In: Henson DB, Wall M, eds. Perimetry update 2002/2003. Amsterdam: Kugler, 2004; 157-63.
23. Harris RJ. A primer of multivariate statistics, 2nd ed. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1985; 331-4.
24. Kirk RE. Experimental design: procedures for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks-Cole, 1982; 74-9.
25. Breiman L, Friedman JH, Olshen RA, Stone CJ. Classification and regression trees. Monterey, CA: Wadsworth & Brooks-Cole Advanced Books & Software; 1984.
26. Flammer J, Drance SM, Zulauf M. Differential light threshold; the short-and long-term fluctuation in patients with glaucoma, normal controls, and patients with suspected glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1984; 102: 704-6.
27. Pradines F, Montard M, Royer J. Le programme G1 de l'Octopus. J Fr Ophtalmol 1987; 10: 699-705.
28. Pearson PA, Baldwing LB, Smith TJ. The relationship of mean defect to corrected loss variance in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Ophthalmologica 1990; 200: 16-21.
29. Blumenthal EZ, Sapir-Pichhadze R. Misleading statistical calculations in far-advanced glaucomatous visual field loss. Ophthalmology 2003; 110: 196-200.
30. Gonzalez de la Rosa M, Pareja A. Influence of the "fatigue effect" on the mean deviation measurement in perimetry. Eur J Ophthalmol 1997; 7: 29-34.