advertisement
Abstract #94931 Published in IGR 22-2
False Positive Responses in Standard Automated Perimetry
Anders H; Vincent Michael P; John G F; Aiko I; Christopher K L; Anja T; Gary C L; Thomas C; Boel BAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology 2022; 233: 180-188
PURPOSE: To analyze the relationship between rates of false positive (FP) responses and standard automated perimetry results. DESIGN: Prospective multicenter cross-sectional study. METHODS: 126 patients with manifest or suspect glaucoma were tested with SITA Standard, SITA Fast and SITA Faster at each of two visits. We calculated inter-visit differences in mean deviation (MD), visual field index (VFI) and number of statistically significant test points as a function of FP rates and also as a function of general height (GH). RESULTS: Increasing FP values were associated with higher MD values for all three algorithms, but the effects were small, 0.3-0.6 dB, for an increase of 10 percentage points of FP rate, and for VFI even smaller, 0.6-1.4%. Only very small parts of inter-visit differences were explained by FP (r-values 0.00-0.11). The effects of FP were larger in severe glaucoma, with MD increases of 1.1-2.0 dB per 10 percentage points of FP, and r values ranging from 0.04 to 0.33. Numbers of significantly depressed total deviation points were affected only slightly, and pattern deviation probability maps were generally unaffected. GH was much more strongly related to perimetric outcomes than FP was. CONCLUSIONS: Across three different standard automated perimetry thresholding algorithms, FP rates showed only weak associations with visual field test results, except in severe glaucoma. Current recommendations regarding acceptable FP ranges may require revision. GH or other analyses may be better suited than FP rates for identifying unreliable results in patients who frequently press the response button without actually having perceived stimuli.
Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Ophthalmology, Lund University and Skåne University Hospital Malmö, Sweden. Electronic address: anders.heijl@med.lu.se.
Full articleClassification:
6.6.2 Automated (Part of: 6 Clinical examination methods > 6.6 Visual field examination and other visual function tests)
