Signal/noise analysis to compare tests for measuring visual field loss and its progression

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 50, Issue 10, 2009, Pages 4700-4708

  Artes, Paul H ^a   Chauhan, Balwantray C ^a  

^a DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ASTIGMATISM; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DISEASE COURSE; FREQUENCY DOUBLING TECHNOLOGY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; OPEN ANGLE GLAUCOMA; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; STANDARD AUTOMATED PERIMETRY; VISION TEST; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL FIELD DEFECT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; OPTIC NERVE DISEASE; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; VISUAL DISORDER;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; DISEASE PROGRESSION; GLAUCOMA, OPEN-ANGLE; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MIDDLE AGED; OPTIC NERVE DISEASES; PERIMETRY; VISION DISORDERS; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 70349580527     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: 15525783     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.09-3601     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Anderson DR, Patella VM. Automated Static Perimetry. St. Louis: Mosby; 1999.
2. Spry PGD, Johnson CA. Identification of progressive glaucomatous visual field loss. Surv Ophthalmol. 2002;47:158-173.
3. 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.
4. Keltner JL, Johnson CA, Quigg JM, Cello KE, Kass MA, Gordon MO. Confirmation of visual field abnormalities in the ocular hypertension treatment study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118:1187-1194.
5. Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, et al. Measuring visual field progression in the early manifest glaucoma trial. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2003;81:286-293.
6. Gardiner SK, Crabb DP. Examination of different pointwise linear regression methods for determining visual field progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:1400-1407.
7. Vesti E, Johnson CA, Chauhan BC. Comparison of different methods for detecting glaucomatous visual field progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:3873-3879.
8. Gardiner SK, Crabb DP. Frequency of testing for detecting visual field progression. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86:560-564.
9. Chauhan BC, Garway-Heath DF, Goñi FJ, et al. Practical recommendations for measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008;92:569-573.
10. Bengtsson B, Olsson J, Heijl A, Rootzén H. A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry, SITA. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1997;75:368-375.
11. Vingrys AJ, Pianta MJ. A new look at threshold estimation algorithms for automated static perimetry. Optom Vision Sci. 1999;76: 588-595.
12. Anderson AJ, Johnson CA. Comparison of the ASA, MOBS, and ZEST threshold methods. Vision Res. 2006;46:2403-2411.
13. 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.
14. Schiefer U, Pascual JP, Edmunds B, et al. Comparison of the new perimetric GATE strategy with conventional full-threshold and SITA standard strategies. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50:488-494.
15. Frisén L. Computerized perimetry: possibilities for individual adaptation and feedback. Doc Ophthalmol. 1988;69:3-9.
16. Frisen L. Perimetric variability: importance of criterion level. Doc Ophthalmol. 1988;70:323-330.
17. Kutzko KE, Brito CF, Wall M. Effect of instructions on conventional automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:2006-2013.
18. Wall M, Woodward KR, Brito CF. The effect of attention on conventional automated perimetry and luminance size threshold perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45:342-350.
19. Miranda MA, Henson DB. Perimetric sensitivity and response variability in glaucoma with single-stimulus automated perimetry and multiple-stimulus perimetry with verbal feedback. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2008;86(2):202-206.
20. Anderson RS. The psychophysics of glaucoma: improving the structure/function relationship. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2006;25:79-97.
21. McKendrick AM. Recent developments in perimetry: test stimuli and procedures. Clin Exp Optom. 2005;88:73-80.
22. Monhart M. What Are the Options of Psychophysical Approaches in Glaucoma?. Surv Ophthalmol. 2007;52(suppl 2):S127-S133.
23. Wall M. What's new in perimetry. J Neuroophthalmol. 2004;24: 46-55.
24. Fogagnolo P, Rossetti L, Ranno S, Ferreras A, Orzalesi N. Shortwavelength automated perimetry and frequency-doubling technology perimetry in glaucoma. Prog Brain Res. 2008;173:101-124.
25. Hot A, Dul MW, Swanson WH. Development and evaluation of a contrast sensitivity perimetry test for patients with glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:3049-3057.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. Wall M, Woodward KR, Doyle CK, Artes PH. Repeatability of automated perimetry: a comparison between standard automated perimetry with stimulus size III and V, Matrix, and motion perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50:974-979.
29. Spry PGD, Johnson CA, McKendrick AM, Turpin A. Variability components of standard automated perimetry and frequency-doubling technology perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42: 1404-1410.
30. Anderson AJ, Johnson CA. Anatomy of a supergroup: does a criterion of normal perimetric performance generate a supernormal population? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:5043-5048.
31. Sakata LM, DeLeon-Ortega J, Arthur SN, Monheit BE, Girkin CA. Detecting visual function abnormalities using the Swedish interactive threshold algorithm and matrix perimetry in eyes with glaucomatous appearance of the optic disc. Arch Ophthalmol. 2007; 125:340-345.
32. Chauhan BC, House PH, McCormick TA, LeBlanc RP. Comparison of conventional and high-pass resolution perimetry in a prospective study of patients with glaucoma and healthy controls. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117(1):24-33.
33. Johnson CA, Adams AJ, Casson EJ, Brandt JD. Progression of early glaucomatous visual field loss as detected by blue- on-yellow and standard white-on-white automated perimetry. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993;111:651-656.
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. Asman P, Heijl A. Glaucoma Hemifield Test. Automated visual field evaluation. Arch Ophthalmol. 1992;110:812-819.
37. 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.
38. Warton DI, Wright IJ, Falster DS, Westoby M. Bivariate line-fitting methods for allometry. Biol Rev. 2006;81:259-291.
39. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1: 307-310.
40. R Development Core Team. R. A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2004.
41. Ihaka R, Gentleman R. R: a language for data analysis and graphics. J Comput Graphic Stat. 1996;5:299-314.
42. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM. Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-Plus. New York: Springer; 2000.
43. Weisberg S. Applied Linear Regression: New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1985.
44. Racette L, Medeiros FA, Zangwill LM, Ng D, Weinreb RN, Sample PA. Diagnostic accuracy of the Matrix 24-2 and original N-30 frequency-doubling technology tests compared with standard automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:954-960.
45. Sun HAO, Dul MW, Swanson WH. Linearity can account for the similarity among conventional, frequency-doubling, and gaborbased perimetric tests in the glaucomatous macula. Optom Vis Sci. 2006;83:E455.
46. 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.e261.
47. 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.
48. Artes PH, Iwase A, Ohno Y, Kitazawa Y, Chauhan BC. Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from full threshold, SITA standard, and SITA fast strategies. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:2654-2659.
49. Huber PJ. Robust Statistics: New York: Wiley-Interscience; 2004.