Diagnostic accuracy of the matrix 24-2 and original n-30 frequency-doubling technology tests compared with standard automated perimetry

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 49, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 954-960

  Racette, Lyne ^a   Medeiros, Felipe A ^a   Zangwill, Linda M ^a   Ng, Diana ^a   Weinreb, Robert N ^a   Sample, Pamela A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TECHNOLOGY; VISION; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MIDDLE AGED; OPEN ANGLE GLAUCOMA; OPTIC NERVE DISEASE; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; REPRODUCIBILITY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; ROC CURVE; STANDARD; VISUAL DISORDER; VISUAL FIELD;

CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA, OPEN-ANGLE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OPTIC NERVE DISEASES; PERIMETRY; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ROC CURVE; VISION DISORDERS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 41949098733     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: 15525783     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.07-0493     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Kelly DH. Frequency doubling in visual responses. J Opt Soc Am. 1966;56:1628-1633.
2. Maddess T. Performance of nonlinear visual units in ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Clin Vision Sci. 1992;7:371-383.
3. Johnson CA, Samuels SJ. Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss with frequency-doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997;38:413-425.
4. Maddess T, Hemmi JM, James AC. Evidence for spatial aliasing effects in the Y-like cells of the magnocellular visual pathway. Vision Res. 1998;38:1843-1859.
5. Anderson AJ, Johnson CA. Mechanisms isolated by frequencydoubling technology perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:398-401.
6. 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.
7. Johnson CA. Selective versus nonselective losses in glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 1994;3(suppl):S32-S44.
8. Thomas R, Bhat S, Muliyil JP, Parikh R, George R. Frequency doubling perimetry in glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2002;11:46 -50.
9. Yamada N, Chen PP, Mills RP, et al. Screening for glaucoma with frequency-doubling technology and Damato campimetry. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117:1479-1484.
10. 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.
11. Paczka JA, Friedman DS, Quigley HA, Barron Y, Vitale S. Diagnostic capabilities of frequency-doubling technology, scanning laser polarimetry, and nerve fiber layer photographs to distinguish glaucomatous damage. Am J Ophthalmol. 2001;131:188-197.
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. 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.
14. Spry PG, Johnson CA, McKendrick AM, Turpin A. Variability components of standard automated perimetry and frequency-doubling technology perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42:14041410.
15. Chauhan BC, Johnson CA. Test-retest variability of frequency-doubling perimetry and conventional perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal subjects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40:648-656.
16. Artes PH, Hutchison DM, Nicolela MT, LeBlanc RP, Chauhan BC. Threshold and variability properties of matrix frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:2451-2457.
17. Johnson CA, Demirel S. The role of spatial and temporal factors in frequency-doubling perimetry. In: Wall M, Heijl A, eds. Perimetry Update 1996/9: Proceedings of the XIIth International Perimetric Society Meeting. Amsterdam: Kugler; 1996:13-19.
18. Anderson AJ, Johnson CA. Frequency-doubling technology perimetry. Ophthalmol Clin North Am. 2003;16:213-225.
19. 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.
20. Johnson CA, Cioffi GA, Van Buskirk EM. Frequency doubling technology perimetry using a 24-2 stimulus presentation pattern. Optom Vis Sci. 1999;76:571-581.
21. Johnson CA, Sample PA, Zangwill LM, et al. Structure and function evaluation (SAFE), II: comparison of optic disk and visual field characteristics. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;135:148-154.
22. 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.
23. Turpin A, McKendrick AM, Johnson CA, Vingrys AJ. Performance of efficient test procedures for frequency-doubling technology perimetry in normal and glaucomatous eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:709-715.
24. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44:837-845.
25. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159-174.
26. Brusini P, Filacorda S. Enhanced Glaucoma Staging System (GSS 2) for classifying functional damage in glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2006;15:40-46.
27. 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.
28. Leeprechanon N, Giangiacomo A, Fontana H, Hoffman D, Caprioli J. Frequency-doubling perimetry: comparison with standard automated perimetry to detect glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143:263-271.
29. Medeiros FA, Sample PA, Zangwill LM, Liebmann JM, Girkin CA, Weinreb RN. 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.
30. 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.
31. Patel A, Wollstein G, Ishikawa H, Schuman JS. Comparison of visual field defects using matrix perimetry and standard achromatic perimetry. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:480-487.
32. Johnson CA, Sample PA, Cioffi GA, Liebmann JR, Weinreb RN. Structure and function evaluation (SAFE), I: criteria for glaucomatous visual field loss using standard automated perimetry (SAP) and short wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP). Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;134:177-185.
33. 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.
34. Anderson AJ, Johnson CA, Fingeret M, et al. Characteristics of the normative database for the Humphrey matrix perimeter. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:1540-1548.
35. Keltner JL, Johnson CA, Levine RA, et al. Normal visual field test results following glaucomatous visual field end points in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123:1201-1206.
36. Medeiros FA, Zangwill LM, Bowd C, Sample PA, Weinreb RN. 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.