This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (44)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Glaucoma  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

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.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

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

Screening Tests for Detecting Open-Angle Glaucoma: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Mowatt et al.
IOVS 2008;49:5373-5385.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

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