Sensitivity and Specificity of New Visual Field Screening Software for Diagnosing Hemianopia

Abstract

Purpose To assess the diagnostic accuracy of visual field results generated by the newly developed software (CU-VF) and the standard automated perimetry (SAP) for detecting hemianopia. Patients and Methods Forty-three subjects with hemianopia and 33 controls were tested with the CU-VF software on a personal computer and SAP. Hemianopia was defined as the presence of a hemianopic field respecting the vertical meridian on SAP with the corresponding neuroimaging pathology as evaluated by 2 neuro-ophthalmologists. Results of CU-VF were independently evaluated by 2 neuro-ophthalmologists, 1 general ophthalmologist, and 1 general practitioner in terms of the presence of hemianopia. Sensitivity, specificity, and kappa coefficient for inter-observer reliability were calculated. Satisfaction and ease of use were evaluated with a visual analog-scale questionnaire and analyzed using paired t -test. Results The sensitivity (95% CI) and specificity (95% CI) of the CU-VF to detect hemianopia was 74.42% (58.53–85.96) and 93.94% (78.38–99.94). Kappa coefficient between neuro-ophthalmologists versus general ophthalmologist and general practitioner were 0.71 and 0.84, respectively. The mean (SD) test duration was 2.25 (0.002) minutes for the CU-VF and 5.38 (1.34) minutes for SAP (p < 0.001). Subjects reported significantly higher satisfaction and comfort using the CU-VF software compared to SAP. Conclusion The CU-VF screening software showed good validity and reliability to detect hemianopia, with shorter test duration and higher subject satisfaction compared to SAP.

Sensitivity and Specificity of the Brentano Illusion Test in the Detection of Visual Hemi-Field Deficits in Patients with Unilateral Spatial Neglect

“…This yields negative consequences for both the prognosis and neurorehabilitation of neglect patients. Overall, the prevalence of VFD following stroke is estimated between 30% and 70%, with most studies agreeing on a prevalence in stroke of at least 50% [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ], with hemianopia more frequent than quadrantanopia (65% and 16%, respectively; [ 16 , 17 ]).…”

Sensitivity and Specificity of Qualitative Visual Field Tests for Screening Visual Hemifield Deficits in Right-Brain-Damaged Stroke Patients

“…To determine the sample size for the present screening study, a prevalence of 50% of VHFDs in stroke patients was considered [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ], setting pre-determined null and alternative hypotheses to 50% and 80%, respectively, statistical power to 0.8, and significance to p < 0.05 [ 33 ]. The minimum number of patients required was 40, with 20 as the minimum sample size for a positive case.…”

“…A lateralised loss of visual sensory input is a negative prognostic factor, since it hampers both cognitive and motor rehabilitation. The prevalence of visual field losses in stroke patients ranges between 30% and 70%, with most studies agreeing on at least 50% of visual hemifield deficits (VHFDs) [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ]. Among VHFDs in stroke patients, homonymous hemianopias are more frequent in those with a right-brain damage (RBD) than in those with a left one (e.g., [ 3 , 4 ]), and hemianopias are more frequent than quadrantanopias [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ].…”