Effect of Restricting Perimetry Testing Algorithms to Reliable Sensitivities on Test-Retest Variability.
Effect of Restricting Perimetry Testing Algorithms to Reliable Sensitivities on Test-Retest Variability.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1167/iovs.16-20053
复制
发表时间：
2016-10-01
影响因子：
4.4
通讯作者：
Mansberger SL
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gardiner SK;Mansberger SL
我们之前已经表明，在严重受损的视野位置（<15-19 dB）获得的灵敏度是不可靠且高度可变的。本研究评估了一种测试算法，该算法不会在受损位置提供高于约 1000% 对比度的非常高的对比度刺激，而是专注于对剩余位置进行更精确的估计。训练有素的眼科技术人员使用两种不同的测试算法对 36 名参与者的 36 只眼睛进行了两次测试：ZEST0（允许灵敏度在 0 至 35 dB 范围内）和 ZEST15（允许灵敏度在 15 至 35 dB 之间，但其他方面相同）。同一算法的两次运行之间的差异被用作测试重测试变异性的度量。使用具有同方差组内误差的随机效应模型在算法之间进行比较，其方差允许在算法之间存在差异。 ZEST15 的估计重测方差是 ZEST0 的重测方差的 53.1%，置信区间为 95% (50.5%–55.7%)。在所有测试中灵敏度≥17 dB 的位置中，ZEST15 的变异性是 ZEST0 重测方差的 86.4%，置信区间为 95% (79.3%–94.0%)。限制可能的灵敏度估计范围可以减少重测变异性，不仅在损坏严重的位置，而且在灵敏度较高的位置也是如此。未来的视野算法应该避免严重受损位置的高对比度刺激。鉴于对于大多数临床用途来说，低灵敏度无法足够可靠地测量，因此专注于对受损较少的位置进行更精确的测试似乎更有效。
We have previously shown that sensitivities obtained at severely damaged visual field locations (<15–19 dB) are unreliable and highly variable. This study evaluates a testing algorithm that does not present very high contrast stimuli in damaged locations above approximately 1000% contrast, but instead concentrates on more precise estimation at remaining locations. A trained ophthalmic technician tested 36 eyes of 36 participants twice with each of two different testing algorithms: ZEST0, which allowed sensitivities within the range 0 to 35 dB, and ZEST15, which allowed sensitivities between 15 and 35 dB but was otherwise identical. The difference between the two runs for the same algorithm was used as a measure of test-retest variability. These were compared between algorithms using a random effects model with homoscedastic within-group errors whose variance was allowed to differ between algorithms. The estimated test-retest variance for ZEST15 was 53.1% of the test-retest variance for ZEST0, with 95% confidence interval (50.5%–55.7%). Among locations whose sensitivity was ≥17 dB on all tests, the variability of ZEST15 was 86.4% of the test-retest variance for ZEST0, with 95% confidence interval (79.3%–94.0%). Restricting the range of possible sensitivity estimates reduced test-retest variability, not only at locations with severe damage but also at locations with higher sensitivity. Future visual field algorithms should avoid high-contrast stimuli in severely damaged locations. Given that low sensitivities cannot be measured reliably enough for most clinical uses, it appears to be more efficient to concentrate on more precise testing of less damaged locations.
登录
查看更多内容
大小阈值周边测量法与传统的自动周边测量法在刺激大小为 III、V 和 VI 时的青光眼损失效果一样好
影响因子：
4.4
作者：
Wall, Michael;Doyle, Carrie K.;Johnson, Chris A.
通讯作者：
Johnson, Chris A.
影响因子：
1.8
作者：
Turpin, Andrew;Artes, Paul H.;McKendrick, Allison M.
通讯作者：
McKendrick, Allison M.
DOI：
10.3758/bf03202828
发表时间：
1983-01-01
期刊：
PERCEPTION & PSYCHOPHYSICS
影响因子：
--
作者：
WATSON, AB;PELLI, DG
通讯作者：
PELLI, DG
DOI：
10.1034/j.1600-0420.1998.760408.x
发表时间：
1998-08-01
期刊：
ACTA OPHTHALMOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
影响因子：
--
作者：
Bengtsson, B;Heijl, A
通讯作者：
Heijl, A
影响因子：
3
作者：
Gardiner, Stuart K.;Demirel, Shaban;Swanson, William H.
通讯作者：
Swanson, William H.