Selective perimetry in glaucoma diagnosis

Current Opinion in Ophthalmology

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 115-121

  Sakata, Lisandro M ^a   DeLeón Ortega, Julio ^a   Girkin, Christopher A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM   (United States)

Author keywords

Psychophysics; Selective perimetry; Visual function

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; GLAUCOMA; GOLD STANDARD; HUMAN; PERCEPTION; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; VISION TEST; VISUAL DISORDER; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL IMPAIRMENT;

ALGORITHMS; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; PERIMETRY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 33847043550     PISSN: 10408738     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/ICU.0b013e3280555096     Document Type: Review

References (49)

1. Quigley HA, Sanchez RM, Dunkelberger GR, et al. Chronic glaucoma selectively damages large optic nerve fibers. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1987; 28:913-920.
2. Anderson RS, O'Brien C. Psychophysical evidence for a selective loss of M ganglion cells in glaucoma. Vision Res 1997; 37:1079-1083.
3. Spry PG, Johnson CA, Mansberger SL, Cioffi GA. Psychophysical investigation of ganglion cell loss in early glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2005; 14:11-19.
4. Yucel YH, Zhang Q, Weinreb RN, et al. Effects of retinal ganglion cell loss on magno-, parvo-, koniocellular pathways in the lateral geniculate nucleus and visual cortex in glaucoma. Prog Retin Eye Res 2003; 22:465-481.
5. McKendrick AM, Badcock DR, Morgan WH. Psychophysical measurement of neural adaptation abnormalities in magnocellular and parvocellular pathways in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004; 45:1846-1853.
6. 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.
7. Anderson RS. The psychophysics of glaucoma: improving the structure/function relationship. Prog Retin Eye Res 2006; 25:79-97. This manuscript reviews the theory underlying psychophysical testing of visual function related to glaucoma.
8. Harwerth RS, Crawford ML, Frishman LJ, et al. Visual field defects and neural losses from experimental glaucoma. Prog Retin Eye Res 2002; 21:91-125.
9. White AJ, Sun H, Swanson WH, Lee BB. An examination of physiological mechanisms underlying the frequency-doubling illusion. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002; 43:3590-3599.
10. Quigley HA. Selectivity in glaucoma injury. Arch Ophthalmol 1998; 116:396-398.
11. Keltner JL, Johnson CA, Quigg JM, et al. Confirmation of visual field abnormalities in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study Group. Arch Ophthalmol 2000; 118:1187-1194.
12. Garway-Heath DF, Hitchings RA. Sources of bias in studies of optic disc and retinal nerve fibre layer morphology. Br J Ophthalmol 1998; 82:986.
13. Boden C, Pascual J, Medeiros FA, et al. Relationship of SITA and full-threshold standard perimetry to frequency-doubling technology perimetry in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005; 46:2433-2439.
14. Bengtsson B, Olsson J, Heijl A, Rootzen H. A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry, SITA. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1997; 75:368-375.
15. Bengtsson B, Heijl A, Olsson J. Evaluation of a new threshold visual field strategy, SITA, in normal subjects. Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1998; 76:165-169.
16. Sekhar GC, Naduvilath TJ, Lakkai M, et al. Sensitivity of Swedish interactive threshold algorithm compared with standard full threshold algorithm in Humphrey visual field testing. Ophthalmology 2000; 107:1303-1308.
17. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. Evaluation of a new perimetric threshold strategy, SITA, in patients with manifest and suspect glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1998; 76:268-272.
18. Demirel S, Johnson CA. Isolation of short-wavelength sensitive mechanisms in normal and glaucomatous visual field regions. J Glaucoma 2000; 9:63-73.
19. Dacey DM, Lee BB. The 'blue-on' opponent pathway in primate retina originates from a distinct bistratified ganglion cell type. Nature 1994; 367:731-735.
20. Sample PA, Weinreb RN. Progressive color visual field loss in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1992; 33:2068-2071.
21. Johnson CA, Adams AJ, Casson EJ, Brandt JD. Blue-on-yellow perimetry can predict the development of glaucomatous visual field loss. Arch Ophthalmol 1993; 111:645-650.
22. Sample PA, Taylor JD, Martinez GA, et al. Short-wavelength color visual fields in glaucoma suspects at risk. Am J Ophthalmol 1993; 115:225-233.
23. Girkin CA, Emdadi A, Sample PA, et al. Short-wavelength automated perimetry and standard perimetry in the detection of progressive optic disc cupping. Arch Ophthalmol 2000; 118:1231-1236.
24. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. Normal intersubject threshold variability and normal limits of the SITA SWAP and full threshold SWAP perimetric programs. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003; 44:5029-5034.
25. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. Diagnostic sensitivity of fast blue-yellow and standard automated perimetry in early glaucoma: a comparison between different test programs. Ophthalmology 2006; 113:1092-1097. This was the first study to compare the diagnostic performance of SWAP using the SITA strategy to SWAP using the FT strategy.
26. Johnson CA, Samuels SJ. Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss with frequency-doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1997; 38:413-425.
27. Kelly DH. Nonlinear visual responses to flickering sinusoidal gratings. J Opt Soc Am 1981; 71:1051-1055.
28. Maddess T, Severt WL. Testing for glaucoma with the frequency-doubling illusion in the whole, macular and eccentric visual fields. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol 1999; 27:194-196.
29. Pierre-Filho Pde T, Schimiti RB, De Vasconcellos JP, Costa VP. Sensitivity and specificity of frequency-doubling technology, tendency-oriented perimetry, SITA Standard and SITA Fast perimetry in perimetrically inexperienced individuals. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2006; 84:345-350.
30. 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.
31. Patel SC, Friedman DS, Varadkar P, Robin AL. Algorithm for interpreting the results of frequency doubling perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol 2000; 129:323-327.
32. 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.
33. Bayer AU, Erb C. Short wavelength automated perimetry, frequency doubling technology perimetry, and pattern electroretinography for prediction of progressive glaucomatous standard visual field defects. Ophthalmology 2002; 109:1009-1017.
34. Haymes SA, Hutchison DM, McCormick TA, et al. Glaucomatous visual field progression with frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in a longitudinal prospective study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005; 46:547-554.
35. Alward WL. Frequency doubling technology perimetry for the detection of glaucomatous visual field loss. Am J Ophthalmol 2000; 129:376-378.
36. 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; discussion 199-202.
37. Wang Y, Xu L, Jonas JB. Prevalence and causes of visual field loss as determined by frequency doubling perimetry in urban and rural adult Chinese. Am J Ophthalmol 2006; 141:1078-1086. This population-based study evaluated the frequency and causes of FDP abnormalities in elderly Chinese individuals.
38. Landers J, Sharma A, Goldberg I, Graham S. A comparison of diagnostic protocols for interpretation of frequency doubling perimetry visual fields in glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2006; 15:310-314.
39. Gardiner SK, Anderson DR, Fingeret M, et al. Evaluation of decision rules for frequency-doubling technology screening tests. Optom Vis Sci 2006; 83:432-437. This paper investigated the performance of different diagnostic protocols on diagnostic accuracy of FDP.
40. Spry PG, Hussin HM, Sparrow JM. Clinical evaluation of frequency doubling technology perimetry using the Humphrey Matrix 24-2 threshold strategy. Br J Ophthalmol 2005; 89:1031-1035.
41. Brusini P, Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, Parisi L. Frequency doubling technology perimetry with the Humphrey Matrix 30-2 test. J Glaucoma 2006; 15:77-83. This manuscript compared the diagnostic performance of FDP-Matrix 30-2 test and the original FDP in detecting functional glaucomatous damage.
42. Medeiros FA, Sample PA, Zangwill LM, et al. A statistical approach to the evaluation of covariate effects on the receiver operating characteristic curves of diagnostic tests in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006; 47:2520-2527. This paper evaluated the diagnostic performance of FDP-Matrix and SAP-SITA in detecting patients with glaucomatous optic neuropathy, using age and disease severity as covariates.
43. Brusini P, Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, et al. Visual field testing with the new Humphrey Matrix: a comparison between the FDT N-30 and Matrix N-30-F tests. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2006; 84:351-356. This manuscript compared the FDP N-30 performed on the original FDP device with the Matrix N-30-F performed on the new FDP-Matrix.
44. Sakata LM, De Leon-Ortega J, Artur SN, et al. Detecting visual function abnormalities with SITA and matrix perimetry in eyes with glaucomatous appearance of the optic disc. Arch Ophthalmol 2006 (in press). This paper compared the diagnostic performance of FDP-Matrix 24-2 and SAPSITA in identifying patients with glaucomatous appearing optic disc.
45. Giangiacomo A, Garway-Heath D, Caprioli J. Diagnosing glaucoma progression: current practice and promising technologies. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2006; 17:153-162. This manuscript provides a comprehensive review of recent studies evaluating structural and functional glaucomatous progression.
46. Artes PH, Hutchison DM, Nicolela MT, et al. Threshold and variability properties of matrix frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005; 46:2451-2457.
47. Sample PA, Medeiros FA, Racette L, et al. Identifying glaucomatous vision loss with visual-function-specific perimetry in the diagnostic innovations in glaucoma study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006; 47:3381-3389. This important study provided an unbiased comparison of four different perimetry techniques in identifying patients with glaucomatous optic neuropathy.
48. Soliman MA, 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.
49. Sample PA, Bosworth CF, Blumenthal EZ, et al. Visual function-specific perimetry for indirect comparison of different ganglion cell populations in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000; 41:1.