Glaucoma follow-up when converting from long to short perimetric threshold tests

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To study the influence of test length in automated perimetry follow-up of glaucomatous eyes and, particularly, to determine if it is possible to usefully interpret test results obtained using a testing algorithm shorter than that used for baseline testing.

METHODS: Automated perimetry findings were retrospectively evaluated in 31 patients with glaucoma for whom multiple Humphrey 30-2 tests were available on the Full Threshold strategy and the SITA Standard strategy.

RESULTS: Variability around the mean deviation regression lines was smaller with SITA than with the Full Threshold strategy. Mean deviation values with SITA averaged about 1 dB less severe. Although localized scotomas measured in decibels were deeper on the Full Threshold strategy, number of significantly depressed points on total deviation and pattern deviation probability plot analyses did not differ significantly between the 2 strategies.

CONCLUSIONS: The SITA strategy showed test-retest consistency that was at least as good as that of the Full Threshold strategy. The 2 strategies produced similar results when analyzed relative to their respective normal significance limits. Generally, it is appropriate to establish a new baseline when converting from one perimetric algorithm to another. When necessary, however, results may be usefully compared if such comparisons are based on total and pattern deviation probability maps rather than on decibel values.

Details

Authors
Organisations
External organisations
  • Skåne University Hospital
Research areas and keywords

Subject classification (UKÄ) – MANDATORY

  • Ophthalmology

Keywords

  • Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Algorithms, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Glaucoma, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Ocular Hypertension, Retrospective Studies, Scotoma, Visual Field Tests, Visual Fields
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)489-93
Number of pages5
JournalArchives of Ophthalmology
Volume118
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 2000 Apr
Publication categoryResearch
Peer-reviewedYes