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: Sensitivity and specificity of the 76-suprathreshold visual field test to detect eyes with visual field defect by Humphrey threshold testing in a population-based setting: the Thessaloniki eye study.
    Author: Topouzis F, Coleman AL, Yu F, Mavroudis L, Anastasopoulos E, Koskosas A, Pappas T, Dimitrakos S, Wilson MR.
    Journal: Am J Ophthalmol; 2004 Mar; 137(3):420-5. PubMed ID: 15013863.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To evaluate the screening performance of the 76-Suprathreshold (76-STHR) visual field test to detect eyes with visual field defect (VFD) as measured by Humphrey threshold testing in a population-based setting. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: All 88 subjects who agreed to participate in the pilot phase of the Thessaloniki Eye Study were included. Participants underwent a 76-STHR visual field test followed by a 30-full threshold (30-2 FTHR) test (Humphrey field analyzer). One eye/subject was randomly selected and included in the analysis. Sensitivity and specificity rates of the 76-STHR to detect eyes with VFD by the 30 to 2 FTHR test were calculated. RESULTS: When eyes with borderline results in the 30 to 2 FTHR test were classified as having a VFD, sensitivity rates of the 76-STHR to detect eyes with VFD by the 30 to 2 FTHR were 85.2%, 77.8%, and 74.1%, whereas specificity rates were 70%, 78%, and 86%, depending on the cutoff used for the 76-STHR. CONCLUSIONS: The 76-STHR test showed high sensitivity and low false-negative results at the "at least one point missed" cutoff level criterion to detect eyes with visual field defect by Humphrey threshold testing in a population-based setting. This criterion should be used when screening in a population-based study setting. By contrast, the 76-STHR would not be the appropriate screening test in a primary care setting with limited resources.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]