The effect of perimetric experience in patients with glaucoma

A. Heijl and B. Bengtsson
Department of Ophthalmology, Malmo (Sweden) University Hospital.

OBJECTIVE: To study prospectively the effects of perimetric learning in glaucoma patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients with newly detected glaucoma underwent repeated perimetric testing using the 30-2 full threshold program with the Humphrey perimeter. Each patient was tested five times at about 1-week intervals. No patient had undergone perimetry before entering the study. RESULTS: In most patients, visual field results improved with repeated testing. Improvements were obvious in 21 of the 37 glaucomatous eyes. Means of mean deviation values improved significantly, by 2.81 dB (P < .001, analysis of variance), between the first and the second test session, and no significant differences were shown between tests 2 and 5. Fields with moderate field loss improved more than fields with milder or more severe loss. Learning effects were more pronounced peripherally than centrally, and better points improved more than more disturbed ones. CONCLUSIONS: The effects of perimetric learning were large and common, and are clinically important. Baselines for perimetric follow-up of patients with glaucoma should consist of more than one test. To avoid misleading conclusions, studies using perimetry to assess the effects of glaucoma treatment should take learning effects into consideration.

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Rarebit Perimetry in Normal Subjects: Test Retest Variability, Learning Effect, Normative Range, Influence of Optical Defocus, and Cataract Extraction
Salvetat et al.
IOVS 2007;48:5320-5331.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Frequency of seeing characteristics of the short wavelength sensitive visual pathway in clinically normal subjects and diabetic patients with focal sensitivity loss
Gilmore et al.
Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2005;89:1462-1467.
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  

Vision restoration therapy: confounded by eye movements
Horton
Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2005;89:792-794.
FULL TEXT  

Test-Retest Variability of Multifocal Visual Evoked Potential and SITA Standard Perimetry in Glaucoma
Bjerre et al.
IOVS 2004;45:4035-4040.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Appearance of the Pattern Deviation Map as a Function of Change in Area of Localized Field Loss
Asman et al.
IOVS 2004;45:3099-3106.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

A Statistical Model for the Evaluation of Sensory Tests in Glaucoma, Depending on Optic Disc Damage
Stroux et al.
IOVS 2003;44:2879-2884.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

'This added to my multiple myopia'
Irwig
BMJ 2003;326:1336-1336.
FULL TEXT  

The Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study: Baseline Visual Field and Test-Retest Variability
Gillespie et al.
IOVS 2003;44:2613-2620.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Scanning laser ophthalmoscopy of the optic nerve head in exfoliation glaucoma and ocular hypertension with exfoliation syndrome
Harju and Vesti
Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2001;85:297-303.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

SITA Standard in Optic Neuropathies and Hemianopias: A Comparison with Full Threshold Testing
Wall et al.
IOVS 2001;42:528-537.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Rate of Visual Field Loss in Progressive Glaucoma
Rasker et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2000;118:481-488.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT