The role of standard automated perimetry and newer functional methods for glaucoma diagnosis and follow-up

Indian Journal of Ophthalmology

Volumn 59, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2011, Pages

  Alencar, Luciana ^a   Medeiros, Felipe ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Frequency doubling perimetry; guided progression analysis; short wavelength automated perimetry; standard automated perimetry; Sweedish interactive thresholding algorithm

Indexed keywords

CONFERENCE PAPER; DISEASE COURSE; FOLLOW UP; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; PERIMETRY; VISUAL SYSTEM EXAMINATION;

DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES, OPHTHALMOLOGICAL; DISEASE PROGRESSION; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; VISUAL FIELD TESTS;

EID: 78650839204     PISSN: 03014738     EISSN: 19983689     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4103/0301-4738.73694     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (35)

1. Kelly DH. Nonlinear visual responses to flickering sinusoidal gratings. J Opt Soc Am 1981;71:1051-5.
2. Quaid PT, Simpson T, Flanagan JG. Monocular and dichoptic masking effects on the frequency doubling illusion. Vision Res 2004;44:661-7.
3. Anderson RS. The psychophysics of glaucoma: improving the structure/function relationship. Prog Retin Eye Res 2006;25:79-97.
4. White AJ, Sun H, Swanson WH, Lee BB. An examination of physiological mechanisms underlying the frequency-doubling illusion. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002;43:3590-9. (Pubitemid 35334369)
5. Johnson CA, Keltner JL, Cello KE, Edwards M, Kass MA, Gordon MO, et al. Baseline visual field characteristics in the ocular hypertension treatment study. Ophthalmology 2002;109:432-7.
6. Wall M, Johnson CA, Kardon RH, Crabb DP. Use of a continuous probability scale to display visual field damage. Arch Ophthalmol 2009;127:749-56.
7. Harwerth RS, Carter-Dawson L, Shen F, Smith EL 3rd, Crawford ML. Ganglion cell losses underlying visual field defects from experimental glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999;40:2242-50.
8. Kerrigan-Baumrind LA, Quigley HA, Pease ME, Kerrigan DF, Mitchell RS. Number of ganglion cells in glaucoma eyes compared with threshold visual field tests in the same persons. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000;41:741-8.
9. Johnson CA, Samuels SJ. Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss with frequency-doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1997;38:413-25.
10. 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.
11. Burnstein Y, Ellish NJ, Magbalon M, Higginbotham EJ. Comparison of frequency doubling perimetry with humphrey visual field analysis in a glaucoma practice. Am J Ophthalmol 2000;129:328-33. (Pubitemid 30126078)
12. 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.
13. Landers JA, Goldberg I, Graham SL. Detection of early visual field loss in glaucoma using frequency-doubling perimetry and short-wavelength automated perimetry. Arch Ophthalmol 2003;121:1705-10.
14. 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;15:310-4.
15. 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;47:2520-7.
16. Patel A, Wollstein G, Ishikawa H, Schuman JS. Comparison of visual field defects using matrix perimetry and standard achromatic perimetry. Ophthalmology 2007;114:480-7.
17. 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;89:1031-5.
18. 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;125:340-5.
19. Moss ID, Wild JM, Whitaker DJ. The influence of age-related cataract on blue-on-yellow perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1995;36:764-73.
20. Adams AJ, Rodic R, Husted R, Stamper R. Spectral sensitivity and color discrimination changes in glaucoma and glaucoma-suspect patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1982;23:516-24.
21. Flammer J, Drance SM. Correlation between color vision scores and quantitative perimetry in suspected glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1984;102:38-9.
22. Hamill TR, Post RB, Johnson CA, Keltner JL. Correlation of color vision deficits and observable changes in the optic disc in a population of ocular hypertensives. Arch Ophthalmol 1984;102:1637-9.
23. 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;111:651-6.
24. Sample PA, Taylor JD, Martinez GA, Lusky M, Weinreb RN. Shortwavelength color visual fields in glaucoma suspects at risk. Am J Ophthalmol 1993;115:225-33.
25. Johnson CA, Adams AJ, Casson EJ, Brandt JD. Blue-on-yellow perimetry can predict the development of glaucomatous visual field loss. Arch Ophthalmol 1993;111:645-50.
26. Sample PA, Martinez GA, Weinreb RN. Short-wavelength automated perimetry without lens density testing. Am J Ophthalmol 1994;118:632-41.
27. Brusini P, Salvetat ML, Parisi L, Zeppieri M. Probing glaucoma visual damage by rarebit perimetry. Br J Ophthalmol 2005;89:180-4.
28. Martin L, Wanger P. New perimetric techniques: a comparison between rarebit and frequency doubling technology perimetry in normal subjects and glaucoma patients. J Glaucoma 2004;13:268-72.
29. Frisen L. New, sensitive window on abnormal spatial vision: rarebit probing. Vision Res 2002;42:1931-9.
30. Sample PA, Medeiros FA, Racette L, Pascual JP, Boden C, Zangwill LM, et al. Identifying glaucomatous vision loss with visualfunction-specific perimetry in the diagnostic innovations in glaucoma study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006;47:3381-9.
31. Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, Bengtsson B, Hussein M. Measuring visual field progression in the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2003;81:286-93.
32. The advanced glaucoma intervention study (AGIS): 7. the relationship between control of intraocular pressure and visual field deterioration. Am J Ophthalmol 2000;130:429-40.
33. Keltner JL, Johnson CA, Quigg JM, Cello KE, Kass MA, Gordon MO. Confirmation of visual field abnormalities in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study Group. Arch Ophthalmol 2000;118:1187-94.
34. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 14. Distinguishing progression of glaucoma from visual field fluctuations. Ophthalmology 2004;111:2109-16.e4.
35. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. A Visual Field Index for calculation of glaucoma rate of progression. Am J Ophthalmol 2008;145:343-53.