Comparison of standard automated perimetry, frequency-doubling technology perimetry, and short-wavelength automated perimetry for detection of glaucoma

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 52, Issue 10, 2011, Pages 7325-7331

  Liu, Shu ^a   Lam, Shi ^a   Weinreb, Robert N ^b   Ye, Cong ^a   Cheung, Carol Y ^a   Lai, Gilda ^a   Lam, Dennis Shun Chiu ^a   Leung, Christopher Kai Shun ^a  

^a CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FREQUENCY DOUBLING TECHNOLOGY PERIMETRY; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RETINA NERVE FIBER LAYER THICKNESS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SHORT WAVELENGTH AUTOMATED PERIMETRYPERIMETRY; SPECTRAL DOMAIN OPTICAL COHERENCE TOMOGRAPHY; STANDARD AUTOMATED PERIMETRY; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL SYSTEM PARAMETERS; VISUAL THRESHOLD; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NERVE FIBER; OPTICAL COHERENCE TOMOGRAPHY; PATHOLOGY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; REPRODUCIBILITY; RETINA GANGLION CELL; VISUAL DISORDER;

ALGORITHMS; AREA UNDER CURVE; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; NERVE FIBERS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETINAL GANGLION CELLS; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, OPTICAL COHERENCE; VISION DISORDERS; VISUAL FIELD TESTS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 84862833576     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: 15525783     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.11-7795     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Kondo Y, Yamamoto T, Sato Y, et al. A frequency-doubling perimetric study in normal-tension glaucoma with hemifield defect. J Glaucoma. 1998;7:261-265.
2. 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.
3. Medeiros FA, Sample PA, Weinreb RN. Frequency doubling technology perimetry abnormalities as predictors of glaucomatous visual field loss. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;137:863-871.
4. Sample PA, Weinreb RN. Progressive color visual field loss in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1992;33:2068-2071.
5. Sample PA, Taylor JD, Martinez GA, et al. Short-wavelength color visual fields in glaucoma suspects at risk. Am J Ophthalmol. 1993;115:225-233.
6. Johnson CA, Adams AJ, Casson EJ, et al. Blue-on-yellow perimetry can predict the development of glaucomatous visual field loss. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993;111:645-650.
7. Johnson CA, Adams AJ, Casson EJ, et al. 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.
8. Maddess T, Henry GH. Performance of nonlinear visual units in ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Clin Vision Sci. 1992;7:371-383.
9. Martin PR, White AJ, Goodchild AK, et al. Evidence that blue-on cells are part of the third geniculocortical pathway in primates. Eur J Neurosci. 1997;9:1536-1541.
10. White AJ, Sun H, Swanson WH, et al. An examination of physiological mechanisms underlying the frequency-doubling illusion. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:3590-3599.
11. Zeppieri M, Demirel S, Kent K, et al. Perceived spatial frequency of sinusoidal gratings. Optom Vis Sci. 2008;85:318-329.
12. Swanson WH, Sun H, Lee BB, et al. Responses of primate retinal ganglion cells to perimetric stimuli. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52:764-771.
13. Nassif N, Cense B, Park BH, et al. In vivo human retinal imaging by ultrahigh-speed spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. Opt Lett. 2004;29:480-492.
14. Hodapp E, Parrish RK II, Anderson DR. Clinical Decisions in Glaucoma. St. Louis: CV Mosby; 1993;52-61.
15. Leung CK, Lam S, Weinreb RN, et al. Retinal nerve fiber layer imaging with spectral-domain optical coherence tomography analysis of the retinal nerve fiber layer map for glaucoma detection. Ophthalmology. 2010;117:1684-1691.
16. Wilson EB. Probable inference, the law of succession, and statistical inference. J Am Stat Assoc. 1929;22:209-212.
17. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology. 1982;143:29-36.
18. Huang Y, Pepe MS. Biomarker evaluation and comparison using the controls as a reference population. Biostatistics. 2009;10:228-244.
19. Sample PA, Medeiros FA, Racette L, et al. Identifying glaucomatous vision loss with visual-function-specific perimetry in the diagnostic innovations in glaucoma study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:3381-3389.
20. Racette L, Medeiros FA, Zangwill LM, et al. 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.
21. 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;89:1031-1035.
22. Burgansky-Eliash Z, Wollstein G, Patel A, et al. Glaucoma detection with Matrix and standard achromatic perimetry. Br J Ophthalmol. 2007;91:933-938.
23. van der Schoot J, Reus NJ, Colen TP, et al. The ability of shortwavelength automated perimetry to predict conversion to glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2010;117:30-34.
24. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. Diagnostic sensitivity of fast blue-yellow and standard automated perimetry in early glaucoma: a comparison between different test programs. Ophthalmology. 2006;113:1092-1097.
25. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. Normal intersubject threshold variability and normal limits of the SITA SWAP and full threshold SWAP perimetric programs. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:5029-5034.
26. Carl Zeiss Meditec. Clinical Solutions. SITA SWAP Frequently asked questions. 2009. http://www.zeiss.de/88256DE3007B916B/0/ 164995472BBD7CE3C12572FD006F22E6/$file/swap_faq-engl.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2011.
27. Ng M, Racette L, Pascual JP, et al. Comparing the full-threshold and Swedish interactive thresholding algorithms for short-wavelength automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50:1726-1733.
28. Tafreshi A, Sample PA, Liebmann JM, et al. Visual function-specific perimetry to identify glaucomatous visual loss using three different definitions of visual field abnormality. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50:1234-1240.
29. Leeprechanon N, Giaconi JA, Manassakorn A, et al. Frequency doubling perimetry and short-wavelength automated perimetry to detect early glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:931-937.
30. Reus NJ, Lemij HG, Garway-Heath DF, et al. Clinical assessment of stereoscopic optic disc photographs for glaucoma: the European Optic Disc Assessment Trial. Ophthalmology. 2010;117:717-723.
31. Jampel HD, Friedman D, Quigley H, et al. Agreement among glaucoma specialists in assessing progressive disc changes from photographs in open-angle glaucoma patients. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009;147:39-44.
32. Polo V, Larrosa JM, Pinilla I, et al. Optimum criteria for shortwavelength automated perimetry. Ophthalmology. 2001;108:285-289.
33. Hood DC, Anderson SC, Wall M, et al. A test of a linear model of glaucomatous structure-function loss reveals sources of variability in retinal nerve fiber and visual field measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50:4254-4266.
34. Hood DC, Fortune B, Arthur SN, et al. Blood vessel contributions to retinal nerve fiber layer thickness profiles measured with optical coherence tomography. J Glaucoma. 2008;17:519-28.