What reduction in standard automated perimetry variability would improve the detection of visual field progression?

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 52, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 3237-3245

  Turpin, Andrew ^a   McKendrick, Allison M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DISEASE COURSE; LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; NONBIOLOGICAL MODEL; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TEST RETEST RELIABILITY; VISUAL FIELD; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; TIME; VISUAL DISORDER;

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DISEASE PROGRESSION; HUMANS; PROBABILITY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TIME FACTORS; VISION DISORDERS; VISUAL FIELD TESTS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 79961012466     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: 15525783     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.10-6255     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. 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.
2. Wild JM, Pacey IE, Hancock SA, Cunliffe IA. Between-algorithm, between-individual, differences in normal perimetric sensitivity: Full Threshold, FASTPAC, and SITA. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40:1152-1161.
3. Kim J, Dally LG, Ederer F, et al. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 14, distinguishing progression of glaucoma from visual field fluctuations. Ophthalmology. 2004;111:2109-2166.
4. 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;118:1187-1194.
5. Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, Bengtsson B, Hussein M, Group E. Measuring visual field progression in the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2003;81:286-293.
6. Vesti E, Johnson CA, Chauhan BC. Comparison of different methods of detecting glaucomatous visual field progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:3873-3879.
7. McKendrick AM, Turpin A. Combining perimetric supra-threshold and threshold procedures to reduce measurement variability in areas of visual field loss. Optom Vis Sci. 2005;82:43-51.
8. Turpin A, McKendrick AM. Retesting visual fields: utilizing prior information to decrease test-retest variability in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48:1627-1634.
9. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. Evaluation of a new perimetric strategy, SITA, in patients with manifest and suspect glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1998;76:368-375.
10. Bengtsson B, Olsson J, Heijl A, Rootzen H. A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1997;75:368-375.
11. Schiefer U, Pascual JP, Edmunhs 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.
12. Morales J, Weitzman ML, Gonzalez de la Rosa M. Comparison between Tendency-Oriented Perimetry (TOP) and octopus threshold perimetry. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:134-142.
13. Kutzko KE, Brito CF, Wall M. Effect of instructions on conventional automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:2006-2013.
14. Henson DB, Chaudry S, Artes PH, Faragher EB, Ansons A. Response variability in the visual field: comparison of optic neuritis, glaucoma, ocular hypertension and normal eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:417-421.
15. Wall M, Kutzko KE, Chauhan BC. Variability in patients with glaucomatous visual field damage is reduced using size V stimuli. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997;38:426-435.
16. 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.
17. Artes PH, Hutchison DM, Nicolela MT, LeBlanc RP, Chauhan BC. Thresholds and variability properties of Matrix Frequency-Doubling Technology and Standard Automated Perimetry in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:245102457.
18. 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.
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. 2008;86:202-206.
20. Bengtsson B, Heilj A, Olsson J. Evaluation of a new threshold visual field strategy, SITA, in normal subjects. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1998;76:165-169.
21. Wild JM, Pacey IE, O'Neill EC, Cunliffe IA. The SITA perimetric threshold algorithms in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;1999:1998-2009.
22. Anderson DR, Patella VM. Automated Static Perimetry. 2nd ed. St Louis: Mosby; 1999.
23. Turpin A, McKendrick AM. Observer-based rather than populationbased confidence limits for determining probability of change in visual fields. Vision Res. 2005;45:3277-3289.
24. Treutwein B. Adaptive psychophysical procedures. Vision Res. 1995;35:2503-2522.
25. Turpin A, McKendrick AM, Johnson CA, Vingrys AJ. Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from Full Threshold, ZEST, and SITA-like strategies, as determined by computer simulation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:4787-4795.
26. Gardiner SK, Crabb DP. Examination of different pointwise linear regression methods for determining visual field progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:1400-1407.
27. Spry PGD, Johnson CA, Bates A, Turpin A, Chauhan BC. Spatial and temporal processing of threshold data for detection of progressive glaucomatous visual field loss. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:173-180.
28. King-Smith P, Grigsby S, Vingrys A, Benes S, Supowit A. Efficient and unbiased modifications of the QUEST threshold method: theory, simulations, experimental evaluation, and practical implementation. Vision Res. 1994;34:885-912.
29. Turpin A, McKendrick AM, Johnson CA, Vingrys AJ. Development of efficient threshold strategies for Frequency Doubling Technology perimetry using computer simulation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:322-331.