Dataset Information

Comparison of Humphrey Field Analyzer and imo visual field test results in patients with glaucoma and pseudo-fixation loss.

ABSTRACT: The aim of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate the results of a visual field (VF) test for patients with glaucoma and pseudo-fixation loss. These patients exhibit fixation loss (FL) rates >20% with the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA); however, actual fixation stabilizes when a head-mounted perimeter (imo) is used. This device is able to adjust the stimulus presentation point by tracking eye movements. We subjected 54 eyes of 54 patients with glaucoma and pseudo-FL to the HFA 30-2 or 24-2 Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm -Standard protocol. All patients also underwent the imo 30-2 or 24-2 Ambient Interactive Zipper Estimated Sequential Testing protocol after HFA measurement. We compared HFA and imo reliability indices [including false-positive (FP) responses, false-negative (FN) responses, and FL rate], global indices [including mean deviation (MD), visual field index (VFI), and pattern standard deviation (PSD)], and retinal sensitivity for each test point. There were no significant differences in MD, VFI, and PSD between HFA and imo, and these measures were strongly correlated (r > 0.96, p < 0.01). There were no significant differences in FP and FN between both devices, while FL measured with HFA (27.5%) was significantly reduced when measured with imo (13.2%) (p < 0.01). There was no correlation in FL and FN between both devices, and a weak correlation for FP (r = 0.29, p = 0.04). At each test point, retinal sensitivity averaged 1.7 dB higher with HFA, compared with imo (p < 0.01). There was no significant variability in global indices in patients with pseudo-FL. The FP response rate might have influenced measures of FL in patients with glaucoma and pseudo-FL.

SUBMITTER: Goukon H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6837373 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of Humphrey Field Analyzer and imo visual field test results in patients with glaucoma and pseudo-fixation loss.

Goukon Hiroyasu H Hirasawa Kazunori K Kasahara Masayuki M Matsumura Kazuhiro K Shoji Nobuyuki N

PloS one 20191107 11

The aim of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate the results of a visual field (VF) test for patients with glaucoma and pseudo-fixation loss. These patients exhibit fixation loss (FL) rates >20% with the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA); however, actual fixation stabilizes when a head-mounted perimeter (imo) is used. This device is able to adjust the stimulus presentation point by tracking eye movements. We subjected 54 eyes of 54 patients with glaucoma and pseudo-FL to the HFA 30-2 or 24-2 Sw ...[more]

PMID: 31697732

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo conduct a preliminary evaluation of the feasibility of visual field fast (VFF), a free iPad-based noise-field perimeter, in detecting glaucomatous scotomas versus the clinical-standard Humphrey visual field (HVF) test. VFF confronts subjects with a screen of flickering stimulus, allowing the immediate perception of scotomas.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional observational study of 66 glaucoma patients (66 eyes) and 30 healthy controls (30 eyes). All patients had no other visual field disorders. VFF was compared against HVF in terms of whole field and quadrants for the following: (1) correspondence in scotoma detection. (2) Agreement and correlation of the scotoma size (percentage of abnormal visual field area). (3) Test duration. Other domains tested included: (1) correlation of VFF scotoma area with the severity of visual field loss on HVF (mean deviation, MD; visual field index, VFI). (2) Repeatability of VFF. (3) Patient descriptors of scotomas.ResultsUsing HVF pattern deviation plot as a reference, VFF detected 52/57 (91.2%) of glaucoma subjects with 1 false-positive (control) (kappa = 0.86). 146/184 (79.3%) of abnormal quadrants (visual field defect present) were localized and 23/157 (14.6%) healthy quadrants were falsely identified as abnormal (kappa = 0.61). VFF underestimated scotoma area as compared to HVF (21.0% versus 44.0%, p < 0.01) but correlated positively (r = 0.268, p = 0.044) with HVF area and negatively with VFI (r = -0.340, p = 0.01) and MD (r = -0.398, p < 0.01). Using HVF total deviation plot as reference, VFF's glaucoma detection rate remained unchanged (kappa = 0.86) with similar quadrant detection (kappa = 0.68). However, a greater underestimation of scotoma area was observed (21.0% versus 85.4%, p < 0.01). VFF's quantitative repeatability was excellent for whole field (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC: 0.96; p < 0.0001) and quadrants (ICC: 0.82-0.96; all p < 0.001). Qualitatively, 35/37 (94.6%) of subjects reported reduced luminance and flicker in scotomas, with similar morphologies on retests. VFF is faster than HVF SITA-Standard in glaucoma (3.60 ± 1.85 min versus 6.92 ± 1.12 min, p < 0.01) and control (1.12 ± 0.486 min versus 5.16 ± 0.727 min, p < 0.01).ConclusionThis early model of VFF accurately detected scotomas with high repeatability. However, its accuracy in localizing and quantifying the scotoma can be improved. Considering its portability and cost-effectiveness, VFF demonstrated potential as a general screening tool for moderate-to-severe glaucoma.

Project description:To compare visual fields on the Nidek MP-1 to those obtained on the Humphrey field analyzer (HFA) in healthy volunteers and assess the effects of differences in stimulus parameters and testing strategies that may influence the interpretation of results in patients. A secondary aim was to establish MP-1 normative data to calculate the total deviation analyses and global indices analogous to those used by the HFA.Fifty healthy volunteers (age 43.5 ± 13.9 years, range, 18 to 68 years) underwent repeat MP-1 and HFA visual field testing, using the 10-2 pattern. MP-1 data were converted to HFA equivalent dB units. Between instrument comparisons of HFA and MP-1 sensitivities, regression of sensitivity with age and examination duration were assessed. Test-retest variability was examined between visits.MP-1 (mean = 32.82 dB, SD = 1.92 dB) and HFA sensitivities (mean = 32.84 dB, SD = 1.83 dB) were not significantly different (p = 0.759). SD values for the HFA (range, 1.11 to 3.30 dB) were similar to the MP-1 (range, 0.14 to 2.75 dB). However, asymmetry comparisons between instruments showed significantly decreased superior rather than inferior retinal values for the MP-1. There was a small but significant difference (p = 0.004) in mean test duration between the MP-1 (mean = 6:11 min, SD = 1:49 min) and the HFA (mean = 5:14 min, SD = 0:42 min). There was also a difference in the decline of mean sensitivity with age, a decline of 0.1 and 0.4 dB per decade was noted in MP-1 and HFA sensitivity, respectively. Test-retest variability was similar between instruments. A small but non-significant increase in mean sensitivity at the second visit for both the MP-1 (p = 0.060) and HFA (p = 0.570) was found.Both instruments showed similar variability and test-retest variability when results were compared using equivalent units. However, there are important differences in sensitivity values, stimulus parameters, and testing strategies that have to be taken into account when comparisons are made.

Project description:PURPOSE:To develop a visual field (VF) feature model to predict the reversal of glaucoma hemifield test (GHT) results to within normal limits (WNL) after 2 consecutive outside normal limits (ONL) results. DESIGN:Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS:Visual fields of 44?503 eyes from 26?130 participants. METHODS:Eyes with 3 or more consecutive reliable VFs measured with the Humphrey Field Analyzer (Swedish interactive threshold algorithm standard 24-2) were included. Eyes with ONL GHT results for the 2 baseline VFs were selected. We extracted 3 categories of VF features from the baseline tests: (1) VF global indices (mean deviation [MD] and pattern standard deviation), (2) mismatch between baseline VFs, and (3) VF loss patterns (archetypes). Logistic regression was applied to predict the GHT results reversal. Cross-validation was applied to evaluate the model on testing data by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). We ascertained clinical glaucoma status on a patient subset (n = 97) to determine the usefulness of our model. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Predictive models for GHT results reversal using VF features. RESULTS:For the 16?604 eyes with 2 initial ONL results, the prevalence of a subsequent WNL result increased from 0.1% for MD < -12 dB to 13.8% for MD ?-3 dB. Compared with models with VF global indices, the AUC of predictive models increased from 0.669 (MD ?-3 dB) and 0.697 (-6 dB ? MD < -3 dB) to 0.770 and 0.820, respectively, by adding VF mismatch features and computationally derived VF archetypes (P < 0.001 for both). The GHT results reversal was associated with a large mismatch between baseline VFs. Moreover, the GHT results reversal was associated more with VF archetypes of nonglaucomatous loss, severe widespread loss, and lens rim artifacts. For a subset of 97 eyes, using our model to predict absence of glaucoma based on clinical evidence after 2 ONL results yielded significantly better prediction accuracy (87.7%; P < 0.001) than predicting GHT results reversal (68.8%) with a prescribed specificity 67.7%. CONCLUSIONS:Using VF features may predict the GHT results reversal to WNL after 2 consecutive ONL results.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Primary angle-closure glaucoma is a type of glaucoma associated with a physically obstructed anterior chamber angle. Obstruction of the anterior chamber angle blocks drainage of fluids (aqueous humor) within the eye and may raise intraocular pressure (IOP). Elevated IOP is associated with glaucomatous optic nerve damage and visual field loss. Laser peripheral iridotomy (often just called 'iridotomy') is a procedure to eliminate pupillary block by allowing aqueous humor to pass directly from the posterior to anterior chamber through use of a laser to create a hole in the iris. It is commonly used to treat patients with primary angle-closure glaucoma, patients with primary angle closure (narrow angles and no signs of glaucomatous optic neuropathy), and patients who are primary angle-closure suspects (patients with reversible obstruction). The effectiveness of iridotomy on slowing progression of visual field loss, however, is uncertain. OBJECTIVES:To assess the effects of iridotomy compared with no iridotomy for primary angle-closure glaucoma, primary angle closure, and primary angle-closure suspects. SEARCH METHODS:We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 9) which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; PubMed; LILACS; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the ICTRP. The date of the search was 18 October 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA:Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials that compared iridotomy to no iridotomy in primary angle-closure suspects, patients with primary angle closure, or patients with primary angle-closure glaucoma in one or both eyes were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Two authors worked independently to extract data on study characteristics, outcomes for the review, and risk of bias in the included studies. We resolved differences through discussion. MAIN RESULTS:We identified two trials (2502 eyes of 1251 participants) that compared iridotomy to no iridotomy. Both trials recruited primary angle suspects from Asia and randomized one eye of each participant to iridotomy and the other to no iridotomy. Because the full trial reports are not yet available for both trials, no data are available to assess the effectiveness of iridotomy on slowing progression of visual field loss, change in IOP, need for additional surgeries, number of medications needed to control IOP, mean change in best-corrected visual acuity, and quality of life. Based on currently reported data, one trial showed evidence that iridotomy increases angle width at 18 months (by 12.70°, 95% confidence interval (CI) 12.06° to 13.34°, involving 1550 eyes, moderate-certainty evidence) and may be associated with IOP spikes at one hour after treatment (risk ratio 24.00 (95% CI 7.60 to 75.83), involving 1468 eyes, low-certainty evidence). The risk of bias of the two studies was overall unclear due to lack of availability of a full trial report. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:The available studies that directly compared iridotomy to no iridotomy have not yet published full trial reports. At present, we cannot draw reliable conclusions based on randomized controlled trials as to whether iridotomy slows progression of visual field loss at one year compared to no iridotomy. Full publication of the results from the studies may clarify the benefits of iridotomy.

Dataset Information

Comparison of Humphrey Field Analyzer and imo visual field test results in patients with glaucoma and pseudo-fixation loss.

Publications

Comparison of Humphrey Field Analyzer and imo visual field test results in patients with glaucoma and pseudo-fixation loss.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets