Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
B. Bengtsson, A. Heijl (2000)
False-negative responses in glaucoma perimetry: indicators of patient performance or test reliability?American journal of ophthalmology, 130 5
J. Katz, A. Sommer (1988)
Reliability indexes of automated perimetric tests.Archives of ophthalmology, 106 9
M. Bickler-Bluth, G. Trick, A. Kolker, D. Cooper (1989)
Assessing the utility of reliability indices for automated visual fields. Testing ocular hypertensives.Ophthalmology, 96 5
H. Rao, U. Addepalli, Shashikant Chaudhary, T. Kumbar, S. Senthil, N. Choudhari, C. Garudadri (2013)
Ability of different scanning protocols of spectral domain optical coherence tomography to diagnose preperimetric glaucoma.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 54 12
B. Parkin, G. Shuttleworth, M. Costen, C. Davison (2001)
A comparison of stereoscopic and monoscopic evaluation of optic disc topography using a digital optic disc stereo cameraBritish Journal of Ophthalmology, 85
F. Medeiros, D. Ng, L. Zangwill, P. Sample, C. Bowd, R. Weinreb (2007)
The effects of study design and spectrum bias on the evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy in glaucoma.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 48 1
Mark Reynolds, W. Steward, S. Sutherland (2004)
Factors that influence the prevalence of positive catch trials in glaucoma patientsGraefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, 228
B. Bengtsson, J. Olsson, A. Heijl, H. Rootzén (2009)
A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry, SITA.Acta ophthalmologica Scandinavica, 75 4
J. Katz, A. Sommer, K. Witt (1991)
Reliability of visual field results over repeated testing.Ophthalmology, 98 1
J. Olsson, B. Bengtsson, A. Heijl, H. Rootzén (2009)
An improved method to estimate frequency of false positive answers in computerized perimetry.Acta ophthalmologica Scandinavica, 75 2
H. Rao, U. Addepalli, R. Yadav, S. Senthil, N. Choudhari, C. Garudadri (2014)
Effect of scan quality on diagnostic accuracy of spectral-domain optical coherence tomography in glaucoma.American journal of ophthalmology, 157 3
V. Begum, G. Jonnadula, R. Yadav, U. Addepalli, S. Senthil, N. Choudhari, C. Garudadri, H. Rao (2014)
Scanning the macula for detecting glaucomaIndian Journal of Ophthalmology, 62
J. Katz, Alfred Sommer (1990)
Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss. The effect of patient reliability.Ophthalmology, 97 8
C. Johnson, J. Nelson-Quigg (1993)
A prospective three-year study of response properties of normal subjects and patients during automated perimetry.Ophthalmology, 100 2
R. Varma, W. Steinmann, I. Scott (1992)
Expert agreement in evaluating the optic disc for glaucoma.Ophthalmology, 99 2
H. Rao, T. Kumbar, U. Addepalli, N. Bharti, S. Senthil, N. Choudhari, C. Garudadri (2012)
Effect of spectrum bias on the diagnostic accuracy of spectral-domain optical coherence tomography in glaucoma.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 53 2
Harsha Rao, R. Yadav, U. Addepalli, Shashikant Chaudhary, S. Senthil, N. Choudhari, C. Garudadri (2014)
Retinal nerve fiber layer evaluation of spectral domain optical coherence tomograph and scanning laser polarimeter to diagnose glaucomaEye, 28
(2012)
The Field Analyzer Primer: Effective Perimetry
Douglas Anderson (1992)
Automated Static Perimetry
J. Nelson-Quigg, J. Twelker, C. Johnson (1989)
Response properties of normal observers and patients during automated perimetry.Archives of ophthalmology, 107 11
ImportanceStandard automated perimetry is the current criterion standard for assessment of visual field (VF) loss in glaucoma. The 3 commonly used reliability indices to judge the quality of standard automated perimetry results are fixation losses (FLs) and false-positive (FP) and false-negative (FN) response rates. However, the influence of reliability indices, when within the manufacturer-recommended limits, on VF classification has been sparsely studied. ObjectiveTo evaluate the role of VF reliability indices in ruling out glaucoma. Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA cross-sectional study of 291 eyes of 291 participants referred to a tertiary eye care facility by general ophthalmologists. The participants were suspected to have glaucoma based on optic disc appearance, but the eyes were judged to be normal with physiological cupping by glaucoma experts on masked evaluation of optic disc photographs. All participants underwent VF testing with the Swedish interactive threshold algorithm standard 24-2 program. Main Outcomes and MeasuresLogistic regression models were used to evaluate the associations between reliability indices and FP classifications on VF testing (glaucoma hemifield test as outside normal limits and pattern standard deviation with P < .05). ResultsMedian FL, FP, and FN response rates were 7%, 1%, and 2%, respectively. Among the 241 participants with reliable VF results (FL <20% and FP response rate <15%), the VF classification was normal in 188 (78.0%) and glaucoma (FP) in 53 (22.0%). Probability of FP VF classification was associated with FN response rates (odds ratio [OR], 1.36; 95% CI, 1.25-1.48, P < .001) but did not appear to be associated with FLs (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.90-1.03, P = .30) or FP response rates (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.83-1.12, P = .64). Predicted probability of FP VF classification was 9% (95% CI, 6%-14%), 40% (32%-49%), and 82% (68%-91%) at FN response rates of 0%, 8%, and 16%, respectively. Conclusions and RelevanceThis study suggests that FN response rates have an effect on the ability of automated VF assessments to rule out glaucoma. Since FN response rates are ignored by the manufacturer while flagging a test as unreliable, clinicians and researchers may benefit by realizing that FN response rates can lead to FP VF classification, even when their frequencies are small.
JAMA Ophthalmology – American Medical Association
Published: Jan 1, 2015
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.