Imaging and Perimetry Society Standards and Guidelines

Sample, Pamela A.; Dannheim, F; Artes, Paul H.; Dietzsch, Janko; Henson, David B.; Johnson, Chris A.; Ng, Minna; Schiefer, Ulrich; Wall, Michael

doi:10.1097/opx.0b013e3181fc3735

Cited by 35 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…8 Pattern deviation (PD) was calculated using standard formulae as the average residual after allowing for the patient's MD. 15 The two points on the testing grid adjacent to the blind spot were excluded from calculations because they showed high variability in outcomes. Comparison of point-wise retinal threshold estimates between eyes was performed by reflecting all left eye data in the vertical to produce equivalent right eye fields.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

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: Methodsmentioning

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

“…Standard kinetic Goldmann perimetry was performed. 28 The extent of the VF was determined by using V/4e or II/4 stimulus. For the central VF, one or more of the stimuli, I/3e, I/2e, or I/1e, were used.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Damage to the Immature Optic Radiation Causes Severe Reduction of the Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer, Resulting in Predictable Visual Field Defects

Lennartsson¹,

Nilsson²,

Flodmark³

et al. 2014

Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In their original article, Drasdo and Fowler did not clarify what point they used as a reference to calculate the visual angle. In accordance with the guidelines from the Imaging and Perimetry Society, 39 we used the nodal point of the schematic eye.…”

Section: Figure A1mentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting the Drasdo Model: Implications for Structure-Function Analysis of the Macular Region

Montesano

Ometto

Hogg

et al. 2020

Trans. Vis. Sci. Tech.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To provide a consistent implementation of a retinal ganglion cell (RGC) displacement model proposed by Drasdo et al. for macular structure-function analysis, customizable by axial length (AL). Methods The effect of axial length on the shape of the inner retina was measured on 235 optical coherence tomography (OCT) scans from healthy eyes, to provide evidence for geometric scaling of structures with eye size. Following this assumption, we applied the Drasdo model to map perimetric stimuli on the radially displaced RGCs using two different methods: Method 1 only displaced the center of the stimuli; Method 2 applied the displacement to every point on the edge of the stimuli. We compared the accuracy of the two methods by calculating, for each stimulus, the number of expected RGC receptive fields and the number RGCs calculated from the histology map, expected to be equivalent. The same calculation was repeated on RGC density maps derived from 28 OCT scans from 28 young healthy subjects (age < 40 years) to confirm our results on clinically available measurements. Results The size of the retinal structures significantly increased with AL ( P < 0.001) and was well predicted by geometric scaling. Method 1 systematically underestimated the RGC counts by as much as 60%. No bias was observed with Method 2. Conclusions The Drasdo model can effectively account for AL assuming geometric scaling. Method 2 should be used for structure-function analyses. Translational Relevance We developed a free web App in Shiny R to make our results available for researchers.

show abstract

Imaging and Perimetry Society Standards and Guidelines

Cited by 35 publications

References 0 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

Damage to the Immature Optic Radiation Causes Severe Reduction of the Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer, Resulting in Predictable Visual Field Defects

Revisiting the Drasdo Model: Implications for Structure-Function Analysis of the Macular Region

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About