A comparison of diagnostic protocols for interpretation of frequency doubling perimetry visual fields in glaucoma

Journal of Glaucoma

Volumn 15, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 310-314

  Landers, John ^a,d,e   Sharma, Alok ^a   Goldberg, Ivan ^a,b,c   Graham, Stuart ^a,c  

^a Eye Associates   (Australia)

^b SYDNEY EYE HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE   (Australia)

^e Park House   (Australia)

Author keywords

Frequency doubling; Interpretation; Nasal step; Perimetry

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FEMALE; FREQUENCY DOUBLING PERIMETRY; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL FIELD DEFECT;

FEMALE; GLAUCOMA, OPEN-ANGLE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERIMETRY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 33746442818     PISSN: 10570829     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.ijg.0000212239.34089.03     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Heijl A. Automatic perimetry in glaucoma visual screening; a clinical study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1976;200:21-37.
2. Johnson CA, Keltner JL. Automated suprathreshold static perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol. 1980;89:731-741.
3. Li SG, Spaeth GL, Scimeca HA, et al. Clinical experiences with the use of an automated perimeter (octopus) in the diagnosis and management of patients with glaucoma and neurologic diseases. Ophthalmology. 1979;86:1302-1312.
4. Quigley HA, Addicks EM, Green R. Optic nerve damage in human glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1982;100:135-146.
5. Harwerth RS, Carter-Dawson L, Shen F, et al. Ganglion cell losses underlying visual field defects from experimental glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40:2242-2250.
6. Johnson CA, Samuels SJ. Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss with frequency-doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997;38:413-425.
7. Quigley HA. Identification of glaucoma-related visual field abnormality with the screening protocol of frequency doubling technology. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;125:819-829.
8. Maddess T, Severt WL. Testing for glaucoma with frequency-doubling illusion in the whole, macular and eccentric visual fields. Aust NZ J Ophthalmol. 1999;27:194-196.
9. White AJ, Sun H, Swanson WH, et al. An examination of physiological mechanisms underlying the frequency-doubling illusion. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:3590-3599.
10. Anderson AJ, Johnson CA. Mechanisms isolated by frequency-doubling technology perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:398-401.
11. Johnson CA. Early losses of visual function in glaucoma. Optom Vis Sci. 1995;72:359-370.
12. Glovinsky Y, Quigley HA, Dunkelberger GR. Retinal ganglion cell loss is size dependent in experimental glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1991;32:484-491.
13. Quigley HA, Sanchez RM, Dunkelberger GR, et al. Chronic glaucoma selectively damages large optic nerve fibres. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1987;28:913-920.
14. Sponsel WE, Argango S, Trigo Y, et al. Clinical classification of glaucomatous visual field loss by frequency doubling perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;125:830-836.
15. Cello KE, Nelson-Quigg JM, Johnson CA. Frequency doubling technology (FDT) perimetry as a means of detecting glaucomatous visual field loss. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129:314-322.
16. Landers J, Goldberg I, Graham S. Detection of early visual field loss in glaucoma using frequency doubling perimetry and short wavelength automated perimetry. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121:1705-1710.
17. Kalaboukhova L, Lindblom B. Frequency doubling technology and high-pass resolution perimetry in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Acta Ophthalmol (Scand). 2003;81:247-252.
18. 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.
19. Iwasaki A, Sugita M. Performance of glaucoma mass screening with only a visual field test using frequency-doubling technology perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;134:529-537.
20. 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.
21. Casson R, James B, Rubinstein A, et al. Clinical comparison of frequency doubling technology perimetry and Humphrey perimetry. Br J Ophthalmol. 2001;85:360-362.
22. 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.
23. Trible JR, Schultz RO, Robinson JC, et al. Accuracy of glaucoma detection with frequency-doubling perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129:740-745.
24. Patel SC, Friedman DS, Varadkar P, et al. Algorithm for interpreting the results of frequency doubling perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129:323-327.
25. Muskens RP, Heeg GP, Jansonius NM. An evaluation of algorithms designed to classify the results from frequency doubling perimetry. Ophthal Physiol Opt. 2004;24:498-503.
26. 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.
27. Hart WM, Becker B. The onset and evolution of glaucomatous visual field defects. Ophthalmology. 1982;89:268.
28. Heijl A, Lundqvist L. The frequency distribution of earliest glaucomatous visual field defects documented by automated perimetry. Acta Ophthalmol. 1984;62:658-664.
29. Brusini P, Busatto P. Frequency doubling perimetry in glaucoma early diagnosis. Acta Ophthalmol (Scand). 1998;227:23-24.
30. 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.
31. Heeg GP, Ponsioen TL, Jansonius NM. Learning effect, normal range, and test-retest variability of frequency doubling perimetry as a function of age, perimetry experience, and the presence or absence of glaucoma. Ophthal Physiol Opt. 2003;23:535-540.
32. Anderson AJ, Johnson CA. Frequency-doubling technology perimetry and optical defocus. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:4147-4152.
33. Artes PH, Nicolela MT, McCormick TA, et al. Effects of blur and repeated testing on sensitivity estimates with frequency doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:646-652.
34. Chauhan BC, Johnson CA. Test-retest variability characteristics of frequency doubling perimetry and conventional perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal controls. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40:648.
35. Soliman MAE, 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.
36. 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.
37. Thomas R, Bhat S, Muliyil JP, et al. Frequency doubling perimetry in glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2002;11:46-50.
38. Yamada N, Chen PP, Mills RP, et al. Screening for glaucoma with frequency-doubling technology and Damato Campimetry. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117:1479-1484.