Visual field progression with frequency-doubling matrix perimetry and standard automated perimetry in patients with glaucoma and in healthy controls

JAMA Ophthalmology

Volumn 131, Issue 12, 2013, Pages 1565-1572

  Redmond, Tony ^a   O'Leary, Neil ^a   Hutchison, Donna M ^a   Nicolela, Marcelo T ^a   Artes, Paul H ^a   Chauhan, Balwantray C ^a  

^a DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; EYE EXAMINATION; FREQUENCY DOUBLING MATRIX PERIMETRY; HUMAN; HUMPHREY PERIMETER; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MIDDLE AGED; OPEN ANGLE GLAUCOMA; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STANDARD AUTOMATED PERIMETRY; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL FIELD DEFECT;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; DISEASE PROGRESSION; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; GLAUCOMA, OPEN-ANGLE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VISION DISORDERS; VISUAL FIELD TESTS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 84891619974     PISSN: 21686165     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2013.4382     Document Type: Article

References (34)

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 (8):2654-2659.
2. Chauhan BC, Johnson CA. Test-retest variability of frequency-doubling perimetry and conventional perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal subjects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40 (3):648-656.
3. 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 (2):417-421.
4. WallM,Woodward KR, Doyle CK, Artes PH. Repeatability of automated perimetry: a comparison between standard automated perimetry with stimulus size III and V, matrix, and motion perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50 (2):974-979.
5. 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 (4):569-573.
6. Katz J, Gilbert D, Quigley HA, Sommer A. Estimating progression of visual field loss in glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1997;104 (6):1017-1025.
7. Smith SD, Katz J, Quigley HA. Analysis of progressive change in automated visual fields in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1996;37 (7):1419-1428. Medline:8641844
8. Vesti E, Johnson CA, Chauhan BC. Comparison of different methods for detecting glaucomatous visual field progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44 (9):3873-3879.
9. Johnson CA, Samuels SJ. Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss with frequency-doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997;38 (2):413-425.
10. Maddess T, Henry GH. Performance of nonlinear visual units in ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Clin Vis Sci. 1992;7:371-383.
11. Dandona L, Hendrickson A, Quigley HA. Selective effects of experimental glaucoma on axonal transport by retinal ganglion cells to the dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1991;32 (5):1593-1599.
12. Heijl A, Lindgren A, Lindgren G. Test-retest variability in glaucomatous visual fields. Am J Ophthalmol. 1989;108 (2):130-135.
13. Artes PH, Hutchison DM, NicolelaMT, LeBlanc RP, Chauhan BC. Threshold and variability properties of matrix frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46 (7):2451-2457.
14. Chauhan BC, NicolelaMT, Artes PH. Incidence and rates of visual field progression after longitudinally measured optic disc change in glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2009;116 (11):2110-2118.
15. Leeprechanon N, Giangiacomo A, Fontana H, Hoffman D, Caprioli J. Frequency-doubling perimetry: comparison with standard automated perimetry to detect glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143 (2):263-271.
16. Liu S, Lam S,Weinreb RN, et al. Comparison of standard automated perimetry, frequency-doubling technology perimetry, and short-wavelength automated perimetry for detection of glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52 (10):7325-7331.
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 (8):1031-1035.
18. Patel A,Wollstein G, Ishikawa H, Schuman JS. Comparison of visual field defects using matrix perimetry and standard achromatic perimetry. Ophthalmology. 2007;114 (3):480-487.
19. 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 (5):1009-1017.
20. Haymes SA, Hutchison DM, McCormick TA, et al. Glaucomatous visual field progression with frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in a longitudinal prospective study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46 (2): 547-554.
21. O'Leary N, Chauhan BC, Artes PH. Visual field progression in glaucoma: estimating the overall significance of deterioration with permutation analyses of pointwise linear regression (PoPLR). Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53 (11):6776-6784.
22. Artes PH, NicolelaMT, LeBlanc RP, Chauhan BC. Visual field progression in glaucoma: total versus pattern deviation analyses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46 (12):4600-4606.
23. 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 (2):322-331.
24. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. Evaluation of a new perimetric threshold strategy, SITA, in patients with manifest and suspect glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1998;76 (3):268-272.
25. Fisher RAS. StatisticalMethods for Research Workers. Edinburgh, Scotland: Oliver & Boyd; 1925.
26. Zaykin DV, Zhivotovsky LA,Westfall PH,Weir BS. Truncated productmethod for combining P-values. Genet Epidemiol. 2002;22 (2):170-185.
27. Quigley HA, Dunkelberger GR, Green WR. Chronic human glaucoma causing selectively greater loss of large optic nerve fibers. Ophthalmology. 1988;95 (3):357-363.
28. Johnson CA. Selective versus nonselective losses in glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 1994;3 (suppl 1):S32-S44.
29. Morgan JE. Selective cell death in glaucoma: does it really occur? Br J Ophthalmol. 1994;78 (11):875-880.
30. CrawfordML, Harwerth RS, Smith EL III, Shen F, Carter-Dawson L. Glaucoma in primates: cytochrome oxidase reactivity in parvo- and magnocellular pathways. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41 (7):1791-1802.
31. Swanson WH, Sun H, Lee BB, Cao D. Responses of primate retinal ganglion cells to perimetric stimuli. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52 (2):764-771.
32. Bengtsson B, Lindgren A, Heijl A, Lindgren G, Asman P, Patella M. Perimetric probability maps to separate change caused by glaucoma from that caused by cataract. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1997;75 (2):184-188.
33. Artes PH, Sharpe GP, O'Leary N, Crabb DP. Visual field progression in glaucoma: the specificity of the guided progression analysis varies considerably between individual patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;53:ARVO E-Abstract 4148.
34. Boden C, Blumenthal EZ, Pascual J, et al. Patterns of glaucomatous visual field progression identified by three progression criteria. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;138 (6):1029-1036.