These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Test-retest variability of frequency-doubling perimetry and conventional perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal subjects.
    Author: Chauhan BC, Johnson CA.
    Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1999 Mar; 40(3):648-56. PubMed ID: 10067968.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To compare the test-retest variability characteristics of frequency-doubling perimetry, a new perimetric test, with those of conventional perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal control subjects. METHODS: The study sample contained 64 patients and 47 normal subjects aged 66.16+/-11.86 and 64.26+/-7.99 years (mean +/- SD), respectively. All subjects underwent frequency-doubling perimetry (using the threshold mode) and conventional perimetry (using program 30-2 of the Humphrey Field Analyzer; Humphrey Instruments, San Leandro, CA) in one randomly selected eye. Each test was repeated at 1-week intervals for five tests with each technique over 4 weeks. Empirical 5th and 95th percentiles of the distribution of threshold deviations at retest were determined for all combinations of single tests and mean of two tests, stratified by threshold deviation. The influence of visual field eccentricity and overall visual field loss on variability also were examined. RESULTS: Mean test time with frequency-doubling perimetry in patients and normal control subjects was 5.90 and 5.25 minutes, respectively, and with conventional perimetry was 17.20 and 14.01 minutes, respectively. In patients, there was a significant correlation between the results of the two techniques, in the full field and in quadrants, whereas in normal subjects there was no such correlation. In patients, the retest variability of conventional perimetry in locations with 20-dB loss was 120% (single tests) and 127% (mean tests) higher compared with that in locations with 0-dB loss. Comparative figures for frequency-doubling perimetry were 40% and 47%, respectively. Variability also increased more with threshold deviation in normal subjects tested with conventional perimetry. In both patients and normal subjects, variability increased with visual field eccentricity in conventional perimetry, but not in frequency-doubling perimetry. Both techniques showed an increase in variability with overall visual field damage. CONCLUSIONS: Frequency-doubling perimetry has different test-retest variability characteristics than conventional perimetry and may have potential for monitoring glaucomatous field damage.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]