advertisement
Abstract #12533 Published in IGR 7-2
Relationship of SITA and full-threshold standard perimetry to frequency-doubling technology perimetry in glaucoma
Boden C; Pascual J; Medeiros FA; Aihara M; Weinreb RN; Sample PAInvestigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2005; 46: 2433-2439
PURPOSE: To compare full-threshold (FT) and SITA algorithms for standard automated perimetry (SAP) with frequency-doubling technology perimetry (FDT) in glaucoma, to help clinicians to relate results in patients who have had two or more of these tests during follow-up. METHODS: This study was a retrospective analysis of data from a longitudinal prospective study at the University of California, San Diego. One hundred four eyes of 104 patients with glaucomatous optic neuropathy detected by optic disc stereophotographs were included. All patients had standard perimetry (SITA and FT) and FDT within 3 months of each other. Global indices, abnormality and severity using two threshold algorithms of standard perimetry were compared with FDT. RESULTS: More eyes had normal visual fields by SAP-FT (57 eyes) than by either SAP-SITA (42 eyes) or FDT (45 eyes), although SAP-FT agreed more closely with FDT (κ = 0.54 ± 0.08) on the presence of a visual field defect than did SAP-SITA (κ = 0.34 ± 0.08). Correlations of FDT to standard perimetry global indices were similar regardless of the threshold strategy used for standard perimetry, yielding r2 = 0.38-0.57 for SAP-FT with FDT, 0.36-0.54 for SAP-SITA with FDT. CONCLUSIONS: Despite many similarities of SAP-SITA and SAP-FT, switching the standard of comparison from SAP-FT to SAP-SITA changes the relationship to FDT with regard to visual field abnormality, but not correlations of global indices. FDT detected abnormal fields in more eyes than SAP-FT. SAP-FT tended to detect a subset of eyes found abnormal by FDT. Visual field defects may be detected more often by FDT and SAP-SITA in eyes with early visual field loss, but these two tests may not agree on which eyes show field loss in patients who undergo both tests at follow-up.
Dr. C. Boden, Hamilton Glaucoma Center and Visual Function Laboratory, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093-0946, USA. cboden@eyecenter.ucsd.edu
Classification:
6.6.2 Automated (Part of: 6 Clinical examination methods > 6.6 Visual field examination and other visual function tests)
6.6.3 Special methods (e.g. color, contrast, SWAP etc.) (Part of: 6 Clinical examination methods > 6.6 Visual field examination and other visual function tests)
