Visual function-specific perimetry to identify glaucomatous visual loss using three different definitions of visual field abnormality

Ali Tafreshi, Pamela A. Sample, Jeffrey M. Liebmann, Christopher A. Girkin, Linda M. Zangwill, Robert N. Weinreb, Maziar Lalezary, Lyne Racette

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE. To compare the most recent versions of standard automated perimetry (SAP), short-wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP), and frequency-doubling technology (FDT) using three definitions of visual field (VF) abnormality: single-test abnormality, abnormality confirmed by the same test, and abnormality confirmed by a different test. METHODS. Data obtained from one eye of each of 174 patients with glaucoma and 164 age-matched healthy control subjects from the Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma Study and African Descent and Glaucoma Evaluation Study were included, based on the appearance of the optic disc on stereophotographs. Each participant had two reliable 24-2 SAP-SITA, SWAPSITA, and Matrix FDT tests. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated for the PSD of each test to equate the tests at 90% and 95% specificity. SAP, SWAP, and FDT were compared under each definition of VF abnormality by assessing the sensitivities, the agreement between tests and the overlap in deficit location at these set specificities. The tests were also compared using the machine-derived PSD. RESULTS. At a set specificity of 95%, single-test sensitivities of 30% (SAP), 29% (SWAP), and 28% (FDT) were observed (all P > 0.05). Sensitivities ranged from 24% to 27% (all P > 0.05) when same-test confirmation was used and from 20% to 23% (all P > 0.05) when different-test confirmation was used. SAP/SAP sensitivity was higher than all different-test combinations (all P <0.05), and SWAP/FDT sensitivity was lower than all same-test combinations (all P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS. Confirming VF abnormality is important and optimal when an abnormal SAP is confirmed by a subsequent SAP or SWAP test.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1234-1240
Number of pages7
JournalInvestigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science
Volume50
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Visual Field Tests
Visual Fields
Technology
Glaucoma
Optic Disk
ROC Curve
Healthy Volunteers

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology
  • Sensory Systems
  • Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Visual function-specific perimetry to identify glaucomatous visual loss using three different definitions of visual field abnormality. / Tafreshi, Ali; Sample, Pamela A.; Liebmann, Jeffrey M.; Girkin, Christopher A.; Zangwill, Linda M.; Weinreb, Robert N.; Lalezary, Maziar; Racette, Lyne.

In: Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Vol. 50, No. 3, 03.2009, p. 1234-1240.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Tafreshi, A, Sample, PA, Liebmann, JM, Girkin, CA, Zangwill, LM, Weinreb, RN, Lalezary, M & Racette, L 2009, 'Visual function-specific perimetry to identify glaucomatous visual loss using three different definitions of visual field abnormality', Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 1234-1240. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.08-2535
Tafreshi, Ali ; Sample, Pamela A. ; Liebmann, Jeffrey M. ; Girkin, Christopher A. ; Zangwill, Linda M. ; Weinreb, Robert N. ; Lalezary, Maziar ; Racette, Lyne. / Visual function-specific perimetry to identify glaucomatous visual loss using three different definitions of visual field abnormality. In: Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2009 ; Vol. 50, No. 3. pp. 1234-1240.
@article{e4eed6c032c04c8b9e3d3255d5765ab9,
title = "Visual function-specific perimetry to identify glaucomatous visual loss using three different definitions of visual field abnormality",
abstract = "PURPOSE. To compare the most recent versions of standard automated perimetry (SAP), short-wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP), and frequency-doubling technology (FDT) using three definitions of visual field (VF) abnormality: single-test abnormality, abnormality confirmed by the same test, and abnormality confirmed by a different test. METHODS. Data obtained from one eye of each of 174 patients with glaucoma and 164 age-matched healthy control subjects from the Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma Study and African Descent and Glaucoma Evaluation Study were included, based on the appearance of the optic disc on stereophotographs. Each participant had two reliable 24-2 SAP-SITA, SWAPSITA, and Matrix FDT tests. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated for the PSD of each test to equate the tests at 90{\%} and 95{\%} specificity. SAP, SWAP, and FDT were compared under each definition of VF abnormality by assessing the sensitivities, the agreement between tests and the overlap in deficit location at these set specificities. The tests were also compared using the machine-derived PSD. RESULTS. At a set specificity of 95{\%}, single-test sensitivities of 30{\%} (SAP), 29{\%} (SWAP), and 28{\%} (FDT) were observed (all P > 0.05). Sensitivities ranged from 24{\%} to 27{\%} (all P > 0.05) when same-test confirmation was used and from 20{\%} to 23{\%} (all P > 0.05) when different-test confirmation was used. SAP/SAP sensitivity was higher than all different-test combinations (all P <0.05), and SWAP/FDT sensitivity was lower than all same-test combinations (all P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS. Confirming VF abnormality is important and optimal when an abnormal SAP is confirmed by a subsequent SAP or SWAP test.",
author = "Ali Tafreshi and Sample, {Pamela A.} and Liebmann, {Jeffrey M.} and Girkin, {Christopher A.} and Zangwill, {Linda M.} and Weinreb, {Robert N.} and Maziar Lalezary and Lyne Racette",
year = "2009",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1167/iovs.08-2535",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "50",
pages = "1234--1240",
journal = "Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science",
issn = "0146-0404",
publisher = "Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Visual function-specific perimetry to identify glaucomatous visual loss using three different definitions of visual field abnormality

AU - Tafreshi, Ali

AU - Sample, Pamela A.

AU - Liebmann, Jeffrey M.

AU - Girkin, Christopher A.

AU - Zangwill, Linda M.

AU - Weinreb, Robert N.

AU - Lalezary, Maziar

AU - Racette, Lyne

PY - 2009/3

Y1 - 2009/3

N2 - PURPOSE. To compare the most recent versions of standard automated perimetry (SAP), short-wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP), and frequency-doubling technology (FDT) using three definitions of visual field (VF) abnormality: single-test abnormality, abnormality confirmed by the same test, and abnormality confirmed by a different test. METHODS. Data obtained from one eye of each of 174 patients with glaucoma and 164 age-matched healthy control subjects from the Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma Study and African Descent and Glaucoma Evaluation Study were included, based on the appearance of the optic disc on stereophotographs. Each participant had two reliable 24-2 SAP-SITA, SWAPSITA, and Matrix FDT tests. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated for the PSD of each test to equate the tests at 90% and 95% specificity. SAP, SWAP, and FDT were compared under each definition of VF abnormality by assessing the sensitivities, the agreement between tests and the overlap in deficit location at these set specificities. The tests were also compared using the machine-derived PSD. RESULTS. At a set specificity of 95%, single-test sensitivities of 30% (SAP), 29% (SWAP), and 28% (FDT) were observed (all P > 0.05). Sensitivities ranged from 24% to 27% (all P > 0.05) when same-test confirmation was used and from 20% to 23% (all P > 0.05) when different-test confirmation was used. SAP/SAP sensitivity was higher than all different-test combinations (all P <0.05), and SWAP/FDT sensitivity was lower than all same-test combinations (all P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS. Confirming VF abnormality is important and optimal when an abnormal SAP is confirmed by a subsequent SAP or SWAP test.

AB - PURPOSE. To compare the most recent versions of standard automated perimetry (SAP), short-wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP), and frequency-doubling technology (FDT) using three definitions of visual field (VF) abnormality: single-test abnormality, abnormality confirmed by the same test, and abnormality confirmed by a different test. METHODS. Data obtained from one eye of each of 174 patients with glaucoma and 164 age-matched healthy control subjects from the Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma Study and African Descent and Glaucoma Evaluation Study were included, based on the appearance of the optic disc on stereophotographs. Each participant had two reliable 24-2 SAP-SITA, SWAPSITA, and Matrix FDT tests. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated for the PSD of each test to equate the tests at 90% and 95% specificity. SAP, SWAP, and FDT were compared under each definition of VF abnormality by assessing the sensitivities, the agreement between tests and the overlap in deficit location at these set specificities. The tests were also compared using the machine-derived PSD. RESULTS. At a set specificity of 95%, single-test sensitivities of 30% (SAP), 29% (SWAP), and 28% (FDT) were observed (all P > 0.05). Sensitivities ranged from 24% to 27% (all P > 0.05) when same-test confirmation was used and from 20% to 23% (all P > 0.05) when different-test confirmation was used. SAP/SAP sensitivity was higher than all different-test combinations (all P <0.05), and SWAP/FDT sensitivity was lower than all same-test combinations (all P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS. Confirming VF abnormality is important and optimal when an abnormal SAP is confirmed by a subsequent SAP or SWAP test.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=62649127096&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=62649127096&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1167/iovs.08-2535

DO - 10.1167/iovs.08-2535

M3 - Article

VL - 50

SP - 1234

EP - 1240

JO - Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

JF - Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

SN - 0146-0404

IS - 3

ER -