Factors that influence standard automated perimetry test results in glaucoma: Test reliability, technician experience, time of day, and season

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 53, Issue 11, 2012, Pages 7010-7017

  Montolio, Francisco G Junoy ^a   Wesselink, Christiaan ^a   Gordijn, Marijke ^b   Jansonius, Nomdo M ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^c ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; JOB EXPERIENCE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; SEASON; VISUAL FIELD; WORKING TIME; EDUCATION; INTRAOCULAR HYPERTENSION; MIDDLE AGED; PARAMEDICAL PERSONNEL; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARD; TIME; VISUAL DISORDER;

FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OCULAR HYPERTENSION; OPHTHALMIC ASSISTANTS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SEASONS; TIME FACTORS; VISION DISORDERS; VISUAL FIELD TESTS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 84872194227     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: 15525783     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.12-10268     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. False-negative responses in glaucoma perimetry: indicators of patient performance or test reliability? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:2201-2204.
2. Blumenthal EZ, Sample PA, Berry CC, et al. Evaluating several sources of variability for standard and SWAP visual fields in glaucoma patients, suspects, and normals. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:1895-1902.
3. Mutlukan E. The effect of refractive blur on the detection sensitivity to light offsets in the central visual field. Acta Ophthalmol. 1994;72:189-194.
4. Kutzko KE, Brito CF, Wall M. Effect of instructions on conventional automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:2006-2013.
5. Anderson RS, McDowell DR, Ennis FA. Effect of localized defocus on detection thresholds for different sized targets in the fovea and periphery. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2001;79: 60-63.
6. Blatter K, Cajochen C. Circadian rhythms in cognitive performance: methodological constraints, protocols, theoretical underpinnings. Physiol Behav. 2007;90:196-208.
7. Roenneberg T, Lotze M, Von Steinbuchel N. Diurnal variation in human visual sensitivity determined by incremental thresholds. Clin Vis Sci. 1992;7:83-91.
8. Tassi P, Pellerin N, Moessinger M, Eschenlauer R, Muzet A. Variation of visual detection over the 24-hour period in humans. Chronobiol Int. 2000;17:795-805.
9. Tuunainen A, Kripke DF, Cress AC, Youngstedt SD. Retinal circadian rhythms in humans. Chronobiol Int. 2001;18:957-971.
10. Hebert M, Martin SK, Lee C, Eastman CI. The effects of prior light history on the suppression of melatonin by light in humans. J Pineal Res. 2002;33:198-203.
11. Sweeney EJ, Kinney JA, Ryan A. Seasonal changes in scotopic sensitivity. J Opt Soc Am. 1960;50:237-240.
12. Bassi CJ, Powers MK. Daily fluctuations in the detectability of dim lights by humans. Physiol Behav. 1986;38:871-877.
13. Heeg GP, Blanksma LJ, Hardus PL, Jansonius NM. The Groningen Longitudinal Glaucoma Study. I. Baseline sensitivity and specificity of the frequency doubling perimeter and the GDx nerve fibre analyser. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2005;83: 46-52.
14. Wesselink C, Heeg GP, Jansonius NM. Glaucoma monitoring in a clinical setting: glaucoma progression analysis vs nonparametric progression analysis in the Groningen Longitudinal Glaucoma Study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127:270-274.
15. Jansonius N. On the accuracy of measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2010;94:1404-1405.
16. Wesselink C, Marcus MW, Jansonius NM. Risk factors for visual field progression in the Groningen Longitudinal Glaucoma Study: a comparison of different statistical approaches. J Glaucoma. In press.
17. Lee M, Zulauf M, Caprioli J. The influence of patient reliability on visual field outcome. Am J Ophthalmol. 1994;117:756-761.
18. Bengtsson B. Reliability of computerized perimetric threshold tests as assessed by reliability indices and threshold reproducibility in patients with suspect and manifest glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2000;78:519-522.
19. Katz J, Sommer A, Witt K. Reliability of visual field results over repeated testing. Ophthalmology. 1991;98:70-75.
20. Birt CM, Shin DH, Samudrala V, Hughes BA, Kim C, Lee D. Analysis of reliability indices from Humphrey visual field tests in an urban glaucoma population. Ophthalmology. 1997;104: 1126-1130.
21. Cascairo MA, Stewart WC, Sutherland SE. Influence of missed catch trials on the visual field in normal subjects. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1991;229:437-441.
22. Newkirk MR, Gardiner SK, Demirel S, Johnson CA. Assessment of false positives with the Humphrey Field Analyzer II perimeter with the SITA algorithm. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:4632-4637.
23. Heijl A, Patella VM, eds. Essential Perimetry. The Field Analyzer Primer. Dublin, CA: Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc.; 2002.
24. Johnson LN, Aminlari A, Sassani JW. Effect of intermittent versus continuous patient monitoring on reliability indices during automated perimetry. Ophthalmology. 1993;100:76-84.
25. Van Coevorden RE, Mills RP, Chen YY, Barnebey HS. Continuous visual field test supervision may not always be necessary. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:178-181.
26. Kramer BC, Musch DC, Niziol LM, Weizer JS. Reliability of simultaneous visual field testing. Ophthalmology. 2012;119: 304-307.
27. Hanifin JP, Brainard GC. Photoreception for circadian, neuroendocrine, and neurobehavioral regulation. J Physiol Anthropol. 2007;26:87-94.
28. Markwell EL, Feigl B, Zele AJ. Intrinsically photosensitive melanopsin retinal ganglion cell contributions to the pupillary light reflex and circadian rhythm. Clin Exp Optom. 2010;93: 137-149.
29. O'Keefe LP, Baker HD. Diurnal changes in human psychophysical luminance sensitivity. Physiol Behav. 1987;41:193-200.
30. Yoon C, May CP, Hasher L. Aging, circadian arousal patterns, and cognition. In: Schwarz N, Park D, Knauper B, Sudman S, eds. Aging, Cognition, and Self Reports. Washington, DC: Psychological Press; 1999:117-143.
31. Monk TH. The post-lunch dip in performance. Clin Sports Med. 2005;24:e15-e23.
32. Buysse DJ, Browman KE, Monk TH, Reynolds CF III, Fasiczka AL, Kupfer DJ. Napping and 24-hour sleep/wake patterns in healthy elderly and young adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1992;40: 779-786.
33. Takahashi M, Fukuda H, Arito H. Brief naps during post-lunch rest: effects on alertness, performance, and autonomic balance. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1998;78:93-98.
34. Jean-Louis G, Zizi F, Lazzaro DR, Wolintz AH. Circadian rhythm dysfunction in glaucoma: a hypothesis. J Circadian Rhythms. 2008;6:Art 1.
35. Drouyer E, Dkhissi-Benyahya O, Chiquet C, et al. Glaucoma alters the circadian timing system. PLoS One. 2008;3:e3931.
36. Feigl B, Mattes D, Thomas R, Zele AJ. Intrinsically photosensitive (melanopsin) retinal ganglion cell function in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52:4362-4367.
37. Agorastos A, Huber CG. The role of melatonin in glaucoma: implications concerning pathophysiological relevance and therapeutic potential. J Pineal Res. 2011;50:1-7.
38. Smith KA, Schoen MW, Czeisler CA. Adaptation of human pineal melatonin suppression by recent photic history. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2004;89:3610-3614.
39. Jasser SA, Hanifin JP, Rollag MD, Brainard GC. Dim light adaptation attenuates acute melatonin suppression in humans. J Biol Rhythms. 2006;21:394-404.
40. Junoy Montolio FG, Wesselink C, Jansonius NM. Persistence, spatial distribution and implications for progression detection of blind parts of the visual field in glaucoma: a clinical cohort study. PloS ONE. 2012;7:e41211.
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. McNaught A, Hitchings RA, Crabb D, Fitzke F. Modelling series of visual fields to detect progression in normal-tension glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1995;233:750-755.
44. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. A visual field index for calculation of glaucoma rate of progression. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;145: 343-353.
45. Wild J, Dengler-Harles M, Searle A, O'Neill E, Crews S. The influence of the learning effect on automated perimetry in patients with suspected glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol. 1989;67: 537-545.
46. Gardiner SK, Demirel S, Johnson CA. Is there evidence for continued learning over multiple years in perimetry? Optom Vis Sci. 2008;85:1043-1048.
47. Nouri-Mahdavi K, Zarei R, Caprioli J. Influence of visual field testing frequency on detection of glaucoma progression with trend analyses. Arch Ophthalmol. 2011;129:1521-1527.