Current Practice with Standard Automated Perimetry

Bosworth, Charles F.; Sample, Pamela A.; Johnson, Chris A.; Weinreb, Robert N.

doi:10.3109/08820530009037869

Cited by 27 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Standard automated perimetry (SAP) plays an important role in the detection, diagnosis, and monitoring of glaucoma patients, 1 however most modern SAPs are not easily portable. Recent growth of portable tablet devices such as the iPad (Apple, Cupertino, CA) have seen these devices become suitable as low-cost, portable, and reliable vision testing instruments due to its good dynamic range of luminance and high spatial resolution.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Perimetric Results from a Tablet Perimeter and Humphrey Field Analyzer in Glaucoma Patients

Kong

Crowston

et al. 2016

Trans. Vis. Sci. Tech.

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo determine the correlation between the perimetric outcomes from perimetry software Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) run on an Apple iPad tablet and those from the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA).MethodsThe MRF software was designed with features including variable fixation and fast thresholding using Bayes logic. Here, we report a cross-sectional study on 90 eyes from 90 participants: 12 had normal optic nerves and 78 had glaucoma with various degrees of visual field loss (41 mild and 37 moderate-severe). Exclusion criteria were patients with worse than 20/40 vision or recent intraocular surgery. The visual field outcomes of MRF were compared against those returned from the HFA 24-2 SITA standard. Participants were tested twice on the MRF to establish test–retest repeatability.ResultsThe test durations were shorter on MRF than HFA (5.7 ± 0.1 vs. 6.3 ± 0.1 minutes, P < 0.001). MRF showed a high level of concordance in its outcomes with HFA (intraclass coefficient [ICC] = 0.93 for mean defect [MD] and 0.86 for pattern deviation [PD]) although the MRF tended to give a less negative MD (1.4 dB bias) compared with the HFA. MRF also showed levels of test–retest reliability comparable to HFA (ICC = 0.93 for MD and 0.89 for PD, 95% limits of agreement −4.5 to 4.3 dB).ConclusionThe perimetry results from the MRF have a strong correlation to the HFA outcomes. MRF also has test–retest reliability comparable to HFA.Translational RelevancePortable tablet perimetry may allow accurate assessment of visual field when standard perimetry machines are unavailable or unsuitable.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Perimetric Results from a Tablet Perimeter and Humphrey Field Analyzer in Glaucoma Patients

Kong

Crowston

et al. 2016

Trans. Vis. Sci. Tech.

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When used in the static form, the automation of threshold determination in the early 1970s resulted in improved efficiency in detecting visual field defects in ocular disease such as glaucoma compared to ‘routine kinetic perimetry’ . Further development using more efficient thresholding algorithms has resulted in continued refinement of visual field testing where it is now effectively one of the gold standards for the diagnosis and progression of many ocular diseases . National guidelines, regulatory bodies and expert opinion, recommend the use of white‐on‐white standard automated perimetry (SAP) to investigate ocular disease.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4 Further development using more efficient thresholding algorithms has resulted in continued refinement of visual field testing where it is now effectively one of the gold standards for the diagnosis and progression of many ocular diseases. [5][6][7][8] National guidelines, 9 regulatory bodies 8 and expert opinion, 7 recommend the use of whiteon-white standard automated perimetry (SAP) to investigate ocular disease.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Equating spatial summation in visual field testing reveals greater loss in optic nerve disease

Kalloniatis

Khuu

2016

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[ 4 ], and being a psychophysical test, it is also influenced by learning, fatigue, psychophysical status, as well as eye movements. [ 5 ]…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Compass: Clinical Evaluation of a New Instrument for the Diagnosis of Glaucoma

Rossetti

Digiuni

Rosso³

et al. 2015

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimsTo evaluate Compass, a new instrument for glaucoma screening and diagnosis that combines scanning ophthalmoscopy, automated perimetry, and eye tracking.Materials and MethodsA total of 320 human subjects (200 normal, 120 with glaucoma) underwent full ophthalmological evaluation and perimetric evaluation using the Humphrey SITA standard 24° test (HFA), and the Compass test that consisted of a full-threshold program on the central 24° with a photograph of the central 30° of the retina. A subgroup of normal subjects and glaucoma patients underwent a second Compass test during the same day in order to study test-retest variability. After exclusion of 30 patients due to protocol rules, a database was created to compare the Compass to the HFA, and to evaluate retinal image quality and fixation stability.ResultsThe difference in mean sensitivity between Compass and HFA was -1.02 ± 1.55 dB in normal subjects (p<0.001) and -1.01 ± 2.81 dB in glaucoma (p<0.001). Repeatability SD for the average sensitivity was 1.53 for normal subjects and 1.84 for glaucoma. Test time with the Compass was 634±96 s (607±78 for normals, 678±108 for glaucoma). Compass analysis showed the percentage of fixation within the central 1° was 86.6% in normal subjects, and 79.3% in glaucoma patients. Color image quality was sufficient for diagnostic use in >65% of cases; Image-based diagnosis was in accordance with the initial diagnosis in 85% of the subjects.ConclusionsBased on preliminary results, Compass showed useful diagnostic characteristics for the study of glaucoma, and combined morphological information with functional data.

show abstract

Current Practice with Standard Automated Perimetry

Cited by 27 publications

References 63 publications

A Comparison of Perimetric Results from a Tablet Perimeter and Humphrey Field Analyzer in Glaucoma Patients

A Comparison of Perimetric Results from a Tablet Perimeter and Humphrey Field Analyzer in Glaucoma Patients

Equating spatial summation in visual field testing reveals greater loss in optic nerve disease

Compass: Clinical Evaluation of a New Instrument for the Diagnosis of Glaucoma

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About