Evaluation of the high specificity Screening Program (C-20-1) of the Frequency Doubling Technology (FDT) perimeter in clinical practice

Eye

Volumn 20, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 681-687

  North, R V ^a   Jones, A L ^a   Hunter, E ^a   Morgan, J E ^a,b   Wild, J M ^a  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF WALES   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Frequency Doubling Technology; Glaucoma; Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer; Visual field loss

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE SEVERITY; FREQUENCY DOUBLING TECHNOLOGY; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTRAOCULAR HYPERTENSION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; OPEN ANGLE GLAUCOMA; PERIMETRY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL SYSTEM EXAMINATION;

EID: 33745098089     PISSN: 0950222X     EISSN: 14765454     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/sj.eye.6701946     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Quigley HA, Sanchez RM, Dunkelberger GR, Lhernault NL, Baginski TA. Chronic glaucoma selectively damages large optic nerve fibres. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1987; 28: 913-920.
2. Quigley HA. Identification of glaucoma related visual field abnormality with the screening protocol of Frequency Doubling Technology. Am J Ophthalmol 1998; 125: 819-829.
3. Maddess T, Henry GH. Performance of non-linear visual units in ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Clin Vis Sci 1992; 7: 371-383.
4. Johnson CA, Samuels SJ. Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss with Frequency-Doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1997; 38: 413-425.
5. Anderson RS, O'Brien CJ. Psychophysical evidence for a selective loss of M ganglion cells in glaucoma. Vis Res 1997, 37: 1079-1083.
6. Johnson CA. Selective versus non-selective losses in glaucoma. J Glauc 1994; 3: 532-544.
7. Kelly DH. Frequency doubling in visual responses. J Opthalmol Soc Am 1966; 56: 1628-1633.
8. Tyler CW. Observations on spatial-frequency doubling. Perception 1974; 3: 81-86.
9. Tolhurst DJ. Illusory shifts in spatial frequency caused by temporal modulation. Perception 1975; 4: 331-335.
10. Maddess T, Goldbert I, Dobinson J, Wine S, James AC. Clinical trials of the frequency doubled illusion as an indicator of glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1995; 36: S335.
11. Burnstein Y, Ellish NJ, Magbalon M, Higginbotham EJ. Comparison of Frequency Doubling perimetry with Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer in a glaucoma practice. Am J Ophthalmol 2000; 129: 328-333.
12. Trible JR, Schultz RO, Robinson JC, Rothe TL. Accuracy of glaucoma detection with Frequency Doubling perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol 2000; 129: 740-745.
13. Cellini M, Torreggiani A. Frequency Doubling perimetry in ocular hypertension and chronic open angle glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2002; 80: 24-25.
14. Horikoshi N, Osako M, Tamura Y, Okano T, Usui M. Comparison of detectability of visual field abnormality by Frequency Doubling Technology in primary open-angle glaucoma and normal-tension glaucoma. Jpn J Ophthalmol 2001; 45: 503-509.
15. Sponsel WE, Arango S, Trigo Y, Mensah J. Clinical classification of glaucomatous visual field loss by Frequency Doubling perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol 1998; 125: 830-836.
16. Iester M, Altieri M, Vittone P, Calabria G, Zingirian M, Traverso CEI. Detection of glaucomatous visual field defect by non-conventional perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol 2003; 135: 35-39.
17. 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.
18. Sample PA, Bosworth CF, Blumenthal EZ, Girkin C, Weinreb RN. Visual function-specific perimetry for indirect comparison of different ganglion cell populations in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000; 41: 1783-1790.
19. Bowd C, Zangwill LM, Berry CC, Blumenthal EZ, Vasile C, Sanchez-Galeana C et al. Detecting early glaucoma by assessment of retinal nerve fiber layer thickness and visual function. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2001; 42: 1993-2003.
20. Wu LL, Suzuki Y, Kunimatsu S, Araie M, Iwase A, Tomita G. Frequency Doubling Technology and confocal scanning ophthalmoscopic optic disc analysis in open-angle glaucoma with hemifield defects. J Glaucoma 2001; 10: 256-260.
21. Serguhn S, Spiegel D. Comparison of Frequency Doubling perimetry and standard achromatic computerized perimetry in patients with glaucoma. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2001; 239: 351-355.
22. Wadood AC, Azuara-Blanco A, Aspinall P, Taguri A, King AJW. Sensitivity and specificity of Frequency Doubling Technology, Tendency-Orientated Perimetry, and Humphrey Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm-fast perimetry in a glaucoma practice. Am J Ophthalmol 2002; 133: 327-332.
23. Iester M, Mermoud A, Schnyder C. Frequency Doubling technique in patients with ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2000; 107: 288-294.
24. 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.
25. Martin L, Wanger P, Vancea L, Gothlin B. 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.
26. Kalaboukhova L, Lindblom B. Frequency Doubling Technology and High Pass Resolution Perimetry in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2003; 81: 247-252.
27. Tatemichi M, Nakano T, Tanaka K, Hayashi T, Nawa T, Iwasaki A et al. Laterality of the performance of glaucoma mass screening using Frequency Doubling Technology. J Glaucoma 2003; 12: 221-225.
28. Kogure S, Toda Y, Crabb D, Fitzke FW, Tsukahara S. Agreement between Frequency Doubling perimetry and static perimetry in eyes with high tension glaucoma and normal tension glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 2003; 87: 604-608.
29. Patel SC, Friedman DS, Varadkar P, Robin AL. Algorithm for interpreting the results of Frequency Doubling perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol 2000; 129: 323-327.
30. Casson R, James B, Rubinstein A, Ali H. Clinical comparison of Frequency Doubling Technology perimetry and Humphrey perimetry. Br J Ophthalmol 2001; 85: 360-362.
31. Budenz DL, Rhee P, Feuer WJ, McSoley J, Johnson CA, Anderson DR et al. Sensitivity and specificity of the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm for glaucomatous visual field defects. Ophthalmology 2002; 109: 1052-1058.
32. Nordmann JP, Brion F, Hamard P, Mouton-Chopen D. Evaluation odes programmes perimetriques Humphrey SITA Standard et SITA Fast chez les patients normaux et glaucomatoux. J Fr Ophthalmol 1988; 21: 549-554.
33. Wild JM, Pacey IE, O'Neill EC, Cunliffe IA. The SITA perimetric threshold algorithms in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999; 40: 1998-2009.
34. Wild JM, Pacey IE, Hancock SA, Cunliffe IA. Between-algorithm, between-individual differences in normal perimetric sensitivity: Full Threshold, FASTPAC, and SITA. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999; 40: 1152-1161.
35. Allen CS, Sponsel WE, Trigo Y, Dirks MS, Flynn WJ. 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.
36. Hodapp E, Parrish RK, Anderson DR. Clinical Decisions in Glaucoma. CV Mosby: St Louis, MI, 1993.
37. Lalle PA. Evaluation of automated perimetry. In: Litvak AB (ed.). Glaucoma Handbook. Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, 2001, pp 97-167.
38. Asman P, Heijl A. Glaucoma Hemifield Test. Automated visual field evaluation. Acta Ophthalmol 1992; 110: 182-189.
39. Vernon SA, Ghosh G. Do locally agreed guidelines for optometrists concerning the referral of glaucoma suspects influence referral practice? Eye 2001; 15: 458-463.