Reliability indexes of automated perimetric tests

J. Katz and A. Sommer
Dana Center for Preventive Ophthalmology, Wilmer Institute, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD 21205.

The "reliability" of a subject's automated perimetric test result is generally assessed by three measures: fixation loss and false-positive and false-negative rates. These reliability criteria were examined for 76 glaucomatous and 248 normal subjects who underwent visual field testing (C-30-2 program; Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer, Allergan Humphrey, San Leandro, Calif). Of the examination results, 45% in glaucomatous subjects and 30% in normal controls were considered unreliable with the use of the manufacturer's reliability criteria. Most test results were unreliable because they failed to meet the criterion for fixation loss. The greater rejection rate among glaucomatous subjects was entirely due to their higher rate of false-negative responses. Factors such as age, pupil diameter, and visual acuity did not explain the difference between the false-negative rates of glaucomatous patients and normal subjects.

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Development and Evaluation of a Contrast Sensitivity Perimetry Test for Patients with Glaucoma
Hot et al.
IOVS 2008;49:3049-3057.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Assessment of False Positives with the Humphrey Field Analyzer II Perimeter with the SITA Algorithm.
Newkirk et al.
IOVS 2006;47:4632-4637.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Effects of Input Data on the Performance of a Neural Network in Distinguishing Normal and Glaucomatous Visual Fields
Bengtsson et al.
IOVS 2005;46:3730-3736.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The time course of visual field recovery following transphenoidal surgery for pituitary adenomas: predictive factors for a good outcome
Gnanalingham et al.
J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2005;76:415-419.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Interpreting the multifocal visual evoked potential: the effects of refractive errors, cataracts, and fixation errors
Winn et al.
Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2005;89:340-344.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Effect of a patient training video on visual field test reliability
Sherafat et al.
Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2003;87:153-156.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Use of a portable head mounted perimetry system to assess bedside visual fields
Hollander et al.
Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2000;84:1185-1190.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

False-Negative Responses in Glaucoma Perimetry: Indicators of Patient Performance or Test Reliability?
Bengtsson and Heijl
IOVS 2000;41:2201-2204.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

A Comparison of the Pattern- and Total Deviation-Based Glaucoma Change Probability Programs
Katz
IOVS 2000;41:1012-1016.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Methodological Variations in Estimating Apparent Progressive Visual Field Loss in Clinical Trials of Glaucoma Treatment
Katz et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 1999;117:1137-1142.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Compliance with Methodological Standards When Evaluating Ophthalmic Diagnostic Tests
Harper and Reeves
IOVS 1999;40:1650-1657.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Simulating binocular visual field status in glaucoma
Crabb et al.
Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1998;82:1236-1241.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT