Humphrey matrix frequency doubling perimetry for detection of visual-field defects in open-angle glaucoma

British Journal of Ophthalmology

Volumn 93, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 582-588

  Clement, C I ^a,b,e   Goldberg, I ^a,b,c   Healey, P R ^b,c,d   Graham, S ^b,c  

^a SYDNEY EYE HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^b Eye Associates   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^d WESTMEAD HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^e NONE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; COMPUTER ASSISTED PERIMETRY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; DISEASE SEVERITY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMPHREY MATRIX PERIMETRY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OPEN ANGLE GLAUCOMA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL FIELD DEFECT; ADULT; CASE CONTROL STUDY; EVALUATION; HOSPITALIZATION; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PERIMETRY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA, OPEN-ANGLE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERIMETRY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 66149102107     PISSN: 00071161     EISSN: 14682079     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2007.119909     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Drance SM. The evolution of perimetry. In: Whalan WR, Spaeth G, eds. Computerized visual fields: what they are and how we use them. Thorofare: SLACK, 1985.
2. 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- 50.
3. Benardete EA, Kaplan E. The dynamics of primate retinal ganglion cells. Visual Neurosci 1999;16:355-68.
4. Maddess T and Henry GH. Performance of nonlinear visual units in ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Clin Vision Sci 1992;7:371-83.
5. Johnson CA, Samuels SJ. Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss with frequency-doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1997;38:413-25.
6. Landers J, Goldberg I, Graham S. A comparison of short wavelength automated perimetry with frequency doubling perimetry for the detection of visual field loss in ocular hypertension. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2000;28:248-52.
7. Medeiros FA, Sample PA, Weinreb RN. Frequency doubling technology perimetry abnormalities as predictors of glaucomatous visual field loss. Am J Ophthalmol 2004;137:863-71.
8. Quigley HA. Identification of glaucoma-related visual filed abnormality with the screening protocol of frequency doubling technology. Am J Ophthalmol 1998;125:819-29.
9. Cello KE, Nelson-Quigg JM, Johnson CA. Frequency doubling technology perimetry for detection of glaucomatous visual field loss. Am J Ophthalmol 2000;129:314-22.
10. Thomas R, Bhat S, Muliyil JP, et al. Frequency doubling perimetry in glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2002;11:46-50.
11. Spry PGD, Johnson CA. Within-test variability of frequency-doubling perimetry using a 24-2 test pattern. J Glaucoma 2002;11:315-20.
12. Johnson CA, Cloffi GA, Van Buskirk EM. Frequency doubling technology perimetry using a 24-2 stimulus presentation pattern. Optom Vis Sci 1999;76:571-81.
13. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307-10.
14. Anderson DR, Patella VM. Automated perimetry. 2nd edn. St Louis: Mosby & Co., 1999:152-3.
15. Quigley HA, Dunkelberger GR, Green WR. Chronic human glaucoma causing selective greater loss of large optic nerve fibers. Ophthalmol 1988;95:357-63.
16. Dandona L, Hendrickson A, Quigley HA. Selective effects of experimental glaucoma on axonal transport by retinal ganglion cells in the dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1991;32:1593-9.
17. Chaturvedi N, Hedley-White ET, Dreyer EB. Lateral geniculate nucleus in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 1993;116:182-8.
18. Spry PG, Johnson CA, Mansberger SL, et al. Psychophysical investigation ofganglion cell loss in early glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2005;14:11-19.
19. Johnson CA, Demirel S, Anderson AJ, et al. Detection of glaucomatous visual field loss using the humphrey matrix frequency doubling technology perimeter. ARVO Abstract 2004:3470.
20. Spry PGD, Hussain HM, Sparrow JM. Clinical evaluation of frequency doubling technology perimetry using the Humphrey matrix 24-2 threshold strategy. BJO 2005;89:1031-5.
21. De Monasterio FM. Asymmetry of on- and off- pathways of blue-sensitive cones of the retina of macaques. Brain Res 1979;166:39-48.
22. Weber AJ, Kaufman PL, Hubbard WC. Morphology of single ganglion cells in the glaucomatous primate retina. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1998;39:2304-20.
23. Harwerth RS, Crawford MLJ, Frishman LJ, et al. Visual field defects and neural losses from experimental glaucoma. Prog Ret Eye Res 2002;21:91-125.
24. Morgan JE. Retinal ganglion cell shrinkage in glaucoma. JGlaucoma 2002;11:365-70.
25. Chauhan BC, House PH, McCormick, et al. Comparison of conventional and high- pass resolution perimetry in a prospective study of patients with glaucoma and healthy controls. Arch Ophthalmol 1999;117:24-33.
26. Wadood AC, Azurara-Blanco A, Aspinall P, et al. 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.
27. 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;47:2520-7.
28. Brusini P, Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, et al. Frequency doubling technology perimetry with the Humphrey matrix 30-2 test. J Glaucoma 2006;15:77-83.
29. Kim TW, Zangwill LM, Bowd C, et al. Retinal nerve fiber layer damage as assessed by optical coherence tomography in eyes with a visual field defect detectedby frequency doubling technology perimetry but not by standard automated perimetry. Ophthalmol 2007;114:1053-7.
30. Gardiner SK, Johnson CA, Spry PGD. Normal age-related sensitivity loss for a variety of visual functions throughout the visual field. Optom Vis Sci 2006;83:438-43.
31. Heijl A, Bengtsson B. The effect of perimetric experience in patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1996;114:19-22.
32. Iester M, Capris P, Pandolfo A, atal. Learning effect, short-term fluctuation and long- term fluctuation in frequency-doubling technology. Am J Ophthalmol 2000;130:160-1.
33. Hudson C, Wild JM, O'Neill EC. Fatigue effects during a single session of automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1994;35:268-80.
34. Anderson AJ, Johnson CA. Effect of dichoptic adaption on frequency-doubling perimetry. Optom Vis Sci 2002;79:88-92.
35. 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;40:648-56.