You are not logged in.

Glaucomatous visual field progression with frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in a longitudinal prospective study

Haymes, Sharon A., Hutchison, Donna M., McCormick, Terry A., Varma, Devesh K., Nicolela, Marcelo T., LeBlanc, Raymond P. and Chauhan, Balwantry C. 2005, Glaucomatous visual field progression with frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in a longitudinal prospective study, Investigative ophthalmology and visual science, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 547-554, doi: 10.1167/iovs.04-0973.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Title Glaucomatous visual field progression with frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in a longitudinal prospective study
Author(s) Haymes, Sharon A.
Hutchison, Donna M.
McCormick, Terry A.
Varma, Devesh K.
Nicolela, Marcelo T.
LeBlanc, Raymond P.
Chauhan, Balwantry C.
Journal name Investigative ophthalmology and visual science
Volume number 46
Issue number 2
Start page 547
End page 554
Total pages 8
Publisher Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology
Place of publication Rockville, Md.
Publication date 2005-02
ISSN 0146-0404
1552-5783
Summary PURPOSE. To compare frequency-doubling technology (FDT) perimetry with standard automated perimetry (SAP) for detecting glaucomatous visual field progression in a longitudinal prospective study.

METHODS. One eye of patients with open-angle glaucoma was tested every 6 months with both FDT and SAP. A minimum of 6 examinations with each perimetric technique was required for inclusion. Visual field progression was determined by two methods: glaucoma change probability (GCP) analysis and linear regression analysis (LRA). For GCP, several criteria for progression were used. The number of locations required to classify progression with FDT compared with SAP, respectively, was 1:2 (least conservative), 1:3, 2:3, 2:4, 2:6, 2:7, 3:6, 3:7, and 3:10 (most conservative). The number of consecutive examinations required to confirm progression was 2-of-3, 2-of-2, and 3-of-3. For LRA, the progression criterion was any significant decline in mean threshold sensitivity over time in each of the following three visual field subdivisions: (1) all test locations, (2) locations in the central 10° and the superior and inferior hemifields, and (3) locations in each quadrant. Using these criteria, the proportion of patients classified as showing progression with each perimetric technique was calculated and, in the case of progression with both, the differences in time to progression were determined.

RESULTS. Sixty-five patients were followed for a median of 3.5 years (median number of examinations, 9). For the least conservative GCP criterion, 32 (49%) patients were found to have progressing visual fields with FDT and 32 (49%) patients with SAP. Only 16 (25%) patients showed progression with both methods, and in most of those patients, FDT identified progression before SAP (median, 12 months earlier). The majority of GCP progression criteria (15/27), classified more patients as showing progression with FDT than with SAP. Contrary to this, more patients showed progression with SAP than FDT, when analysed with LRA; e.g., using quadrant LRA 20 (31%) patients showed progression with FDT, 23 (35%) with SAP, and only 10 (15%) with both.

CONCLUSIONS. FDT perimetry detected glaucomatous visual field progression. However, the proportion of patients who showed progression with both FDT and SAP was small, possibly indicating that the two techniques identify different subgroups of patients. Using GCP, more patients showed progression with FDT than with SAP, yet the opposite occurred using LRA. As there is no independent qualifier of progression, FDT and SAP progression rates vary depending on the method of analysis and the criterion used.
Language eng
DOI 10.1167/iovs.04-0973
Field of Research 119999 Medical and Health Sciences not elsewhere classified
Socio Economic Objective 970111 Expanding Knowledge in the Medical and Health Sciences
HERDC Research category C1.1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
Copyright notice ©2005, Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30047494

Document type: Journal Article
Collection: School of Medicine
Connect to link resolver
 
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 26 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 0 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 97 Abstract Views, 1 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Thu, 30 Aug 2012, 09:36:17 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.