advertisement
Abstract #6734 Published in IGR 4-1
Comparison of the Frequency Doubling Technology screening algorithm and the Humphrey 24-2 SITA-FAST in a large eye screening
Allen CS; Sponsel WE; Trigo Y; Dirks MS; Flynn WJClinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 2002; 30: 8-14
PURPOSE: To compare the Frequency Doubling Technology (FDT) C20-1 screening algorithm and the Humphrey Field Analyser II (HFA) 24-2 SITA-FAST in a large eye screening. METHODS: In a non-randomized, prospective, free eye screening, the FDT Screening Protocol (C20-1 Screening Algorithm) was administered to 574 attendees (422 men and 152 women, average age 64, range 17-89 years) of the 1998 Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) Convention in San Antonio, Texas. Individuals who failed the FDT (two or more misses out of 17 locations) immediately underwent white-on-white threshold visual field perimetry (HFA 24-2, SITA-FAST). Humphrey visual field analysis included STATPAC and masked evaluations by three glaucoma specialists. RESULTS: Approximately one-tenth of the VFW conference attendees voluntarily presented themselves for screening. Among these 574 volunteers, 69 (12%) failed the FDT and underwent HFA analysis. Eighty-one per cent (56/69) of these FDT failures had abnormal HFA Glaucoma Hemifield Tests. Eighty-eight per cent (61/69) were judged to have nerve fibre type visual field loss on HFA by at least two of three masked examiners. A positive correlation existed between the number of FDT locations missed and the HFA mean deviation (r = 0.5, p = 0.0001). A similar association was observed when FDT and HFA results were analyzed by quadrant (r = 0.5, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: There was a low false positive rate and a good positive predictive value comparing the FDT screening algorithm to the HFA 24-2 SITA-FAST in this study. This supports the potential use of FDT as an economical screening device.
Dr. W.E. Sponsel, University of Texas, Health Science Center at San Antonio, Department of Ophthalmology, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio, TX 78229-3900, USA. sponsel@uthscsa.edu
Classification:
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)
