 |
|
Screening for Glaucoma With Frequency-Doubling Technology and Damato Campimetry
Noriko Yamada, MD;
Philip P. Chen, MD;
Richard P. Mills, MD;
Martha M. Leen, MD;
Marc F. Lieberman, MD;
Robert L. Stamper, MD;
Derek C. Stanford, MS
Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117:1479-1484.
Objective To assess frequency-doubling technology (FDT) perimetry (Humphrey Systems, San Leandro, Calif) and Damato campimetry (Precision Vision, Villa Park, Ill) for detecting glaucoma in a public glaucoma screening.
Methods A 2-day public glaucoma screening was held at 2 different institutions. Each subject underwent 2 visual field screening tests (Damato campimetry and FDT perimetry in screening mode), an ophthalmologic examination, and Humphrey perimetry (24-2 FASTPAC) for each eye. Eyes were divided into 4 categories: normal, ocular hypertensive, glaucoma suspect, and definite glaucoma. The sensitivity and specificity of FDT perimetry and Damato campimetry for detecting glaucoma were estimated with receiver operating characteristic curves.
Results Among 240 subjects who underwent FDT, the number identified as normal, ocular hypertensive, glaucoma suspect, and definite glaucoma was 151, 28, 35, and 26, respectively; among 175 subjects who underwent Damato campimetry, the numbers for the same groups were 118, 19, 19, and 19, respectively. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve for FDT perimetry and Damato campimetry were 0.925 and 0.883, respectively. The optimal sensitivity and specificity for FDT perimetry were 92% and 93%, while those for Damato campimetry were 53% and 90%, respectively. The average test time was 1 minute and 3 minutes per eye for FDT perimetry and Damato campimetry, respectively.
Conclusion Frequency-doubling technology perimetry was superior to Damato campimetry in this screening for glaucoma.
From the Departments of Ophthalmology (Drs Yamada, Chen, Mills, and Leen) and Statistics (Mr Stanford), the University of Washington, Seattle; and the Department of Ophthalmology, California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco (Drs Lieberman and Stamper). None of the authors has a proprietary interest in any of the products mentioned in this article.
RELATED ARTICLE
Archives of Ophthalmology Reader's Choice: Continuing Medical Education
Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117(11):1577-1578.
FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Diagnostic Accuracy of the Matrix 24-2 and Original N-30 Frequency-Doubling Technology Tests Compared with Standard Automated Perimetry
Racette et al.
IOVS 2008;49:954-960.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Performance of the 24-2-5 frequency doubling technology screening test: a prospective case study
Spry et al.
Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2007;91:1345-1349.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Clinical evaluation of frequency doubling technology perimetry using the Humphrey Matrix 24-2 threshold strategy
Spry et al.
Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2005;89:1031-1035.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Characteristics of the Normative Database for the Humphrey Matrix Perimeter
Anderson et al.
IOVS 2005;46:1540-1548.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Possible association between heavy computer users and glaucomatous visual field abnormalities: a cross sectional study in Japanese workers
Tatemichi et al.
J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2004;58:1021-1027.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Multifixation campimetry on line: a perimeter for the detection of visual field loss using the internet
Damato and Groenewald
Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2003;87:1296-1298.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Mechanisms Isolated by Frequency-Doubling Technology Perimetry
Anderson and Johnson
IOVS 2002;43:398-401.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Variability Components of Standard Automated Perimetry and Frequency-Doubling Technology Perimetry
Spry et al.
IOVS 2001;42:1404-1410.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Clinical comparison of frequency doubling technology perimetry and Humphrey perimetry
Casson et al.
Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2001;85:360-362.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
