Frequency-doubling technology: A new method for determining glaucomatous visual field defects;Frequenzverdopplungs-perimetrie: Neue Methode zur Untersuchung glaukomatöser Gesichtsfeldausfälle

Ophthalmologe

Volumn 106, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 709-713

  Lamparter, Dr ^a   Schulze, A ^a   Hoffmann, E M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER MAINZ   (Germany)

Author keywords

Frequency doubling technology; Glaucoma; Ocular hypertension; Standard automated perimetry

Indexed keywords

EQUIPMENT; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; METHODOLOGY; PERIMETRY; REVIEW; VISUAL DISORDER; VISUAL FIELD;

EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EQUIPMENT FAILURE ANALYSIS; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; PERIMETRY; VISION DISORDERS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 70349876253     PISSN: 0941293X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00347-009-1957-6     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Anderson AJ, Johnson CA (2003) Frequency-doubling technology perimetry and optical defocus. Invest OphthalmolVis Sci 44:4147-4152
2. Artes PH, Hutchison DM, Nicolela MT et al (2005) Threshold and variability properties of matrix fre-quency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 46:2451-2457
3. Artes PH, Nicolela MT, McCormick TA et al (2003) Effects of blur and repeated testing on sensitivity estimates with frequency doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44:646-652
4. Bengtsson B, Lindgren A, Heijl A et al (1997) Perimetric probability maps to separate change caused by glaucoma from that caused by cataract. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 75:184-188
5. Bozkurt B, Yilmaz PT, Irkec M (2008) Relationship between humphrey 30-2 SITA standard test, matrix 30-2 threshold test and Heidelberg retina tomograph in ocular hypertensive and glaucoma patients. J Glaucoma 17:203-210
6. Brusini P, Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M et al (2006)Visual field testing with the new humphrey matrix: a comparison between the FDT N-30 and matrix N-30-F tests. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 84:351-356 7.
7. Cello KE, Nelson-Quigg JM, Johnson CA (2000) Frequency doubling technology perimetry for detection of glaucomatous visual field loss. Am J Ophthalmol 129:314-322
8. Clement CI, Goldberg I, Graham S et a (2008) Humphrey matrix frequency doubling perimetry for detection of visual field defects in open-angle glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol (epub ahead of print)
9. Harwerth RS, Carter-Dawson L, Shen F et al (1999) Ganglion cell losses underlying visual field defects from experimental glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 40:2242-2250
10. Hodapp E, Parrish RK, Andersson DR (1993) Clinical decisions in glaucoma. CV Mosby Company, St Louis
11. Hoffmann EM, Lamparter J, Aliyeva S et al (2009) Standard automated perimetry versus matrix frequency doubling technology in patients with ocular hypertension and healthy subjects. Poster Presentation ARVO
12. Johnson CA (1995)The Glenn A. Fry Award Lecture. Early losses of visual function in glaucoma. Optom Vis Sci 72:359-370
13. Johnson CA, Cioffi GA, Van Buskirk EM (1999) Frequency doubling technology perimetry using a 24-2 stimulus presentation pattern. Optom Vis Sci 76:571-581
14. KimTW, Zangwill LM, Bowd C et al (2007) Retinal nerve fiber layer damage as assessed by optical coherence tomography in eyes with a visual field defect detected by frequency doubling technology perimetry but not by standard automated perimetry. Ophthalmology 114:1053-1057
15. Kim YY, Kim JS, Shin DH et al (2001) Effect of cataract extraction on blue-on-yellow visual field. Am J Ophthalmol 132:217-220
16. Lam BL, Alward WL, Kolder HE (1991) Effect of cataract on automated perimetry. Ophthalmology 98:1066-1070
17. Leeprechanon N, Giangiacomo A, Fontana H et al (2007) Frequency-doubling perimetry: comparison with standard automated perimetry to detect glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 143:263-271
18. Medeiros FA, Sample PA, Weinreb RN (2004) Frequency doubling technology perimetry abnormalities as predictors of glaucomatous visual field loss. Am J Ophthalmol 137:863-871
19. Quigley HA (1998) Identification of glaucoma-related visual field abnormality with the screening protocol of frequency doubling technology. Am J Ophthalmol 125:819-829
20. Sample PA (2001) What does functional testing tell us about optic nerve damage? Surv Ophthalmol 45(Suppl 3):S319-S324 (discussion S332-314)
21. Smith SD, Katz J, Quigley HA (1997) Effect of cataract extraction on the results of automated perimetry in glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 115:1515-1519
22. Spry PG, Hussin HM, Sparrow JM (2005) Clinical evaluation of frequency doubling technology perimetry using the Humphrey Matrix 24-2 threshold strategy. Br J Ophthalmol 89:1031-1035
23. Spry PG, Johnson CA (2002)Within-test variability of frequency-doubling perimetry using a 24-2 test pattern. J Glaucoma 11:315-320
24. Spry PG, Johnson CA, McKendrick AM et al (2001) Variability components of standard automated perimetry and frequency-doubling technology perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 42:1404-1410
25. Zarkovic A, Mora J, McKelvie J et al (2007) Relationship between second-generation frequency doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in patients with glaucoma. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 35:808-811