advertisement
Abstract #66475 Published in IGR 17-3
Comparison of Standard Automated Perimetry, Short-Wavelength Automated Perimetry, and Frequency-Doubling Technology Perimetry to Monitor Glaucoma Progression
Hu R; Wang C; Gu Y; Racette LMedicine 2016; 95: e2618
Detection of progression is paramount to the clinical management of glaucoma. Our goal is to compare the performance of standard automated perimetry (SAP), short-wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP), and frequency-doubling technology (FDT) perimetry in monitoring glaucoma progression.Longitudinal data of paired SAP, SWAP, and FDT from 113 eyes with primary open-angle glaucoma enrolled in the Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma Study or the African Descent and Glaucoma Evaluation Study were included. Data from all tests were expressed in comparable units by converting the sensitivity from decibels to unitless contrast sensitivity and by expressing sensitivity values in percent of mean normal based on an independent dataset of 207 healthy eyes with aging deterioration taken into consideration. Pointwise linear regression analysis was performed and 3 criteria (conservative, moderate, and liberal) were used to define progression and improvement. Global mean sensitivity (MS) was fitted with linear mixed models.No statistically significant difference in the proportion of progressing and improving eyes was observed across tests using the conservative criterion. Fewer eyes showed improvement on SAP compared to SWAP and FDT using the moderate criterion; and FDT detected less progressing eyes than SAP and SWAP using the liberal criterion. The agreement between these test types was poor. The linear mixed model showed a progressing trend of global MS overtime for SAP and SWAP, but not for FDT. The baseline estimate of SWAP MS was significantly lower than SAP MS by 21.59% of mean normal. FDT showed comparable estimation of baseline MS with SAP.SWAP and FDT do not appear to have significant benefits over SAP in monitoring glaucoma progression. SAP, SWAP, and FDT may, however, detect progression in different glaucoma eyes.
From the Department of Ophthalmology, First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China (RH, YG); Eugene and Marilyn Glick Eye Institute, Indiana University (RH, LR); and Indiana University, Fairbanks School of Public Health, IN, USA (CW).
Full articleClassification:
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)
6.20 Progression (Part of: 6 Clinical examination methods)