Threshold and variability properties of matrix frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma
Threshold and variability properties of matrix frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma
复制标题
DOI：
10.1167/iovs.05-0135
复制
发表时间：
2005-07-01
影响因子：
4.4
通讯作者：
Chauhan, BC
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Artes, PH;Hutchison, DM;Chauhan, BC
目的。比较第二代倍频技术验光（FDT2, Humphrey Matrix; Carl-Zeiss Meditec, Dublin， CA）和标准自动验光（SAP）在青光眼患者中的检测结果。具体来说，检验视野敏感度与测试-重测变异性之间的关系，并比较两种技术之间的总偏差和模式偏差概率图。15例早期至中度视野丧失伴SAP的青光眼患者（平均MD为-4.0 dB，范围为+0.2至-16.1）入组研究。患者参加了三次会议。在每个疗程中，用FDT2（24-2阈值测试）检查一只眼睛两次，用SAP（瑞典交互式阈值算法[SITA]标准24-2测试）检查两次，顺序随机。我们比较了FDT2和SAP在具有相似视野坐标的测试位置之间的阈值。以重测间隔和标准差（sd）建立的重测变异性作为视野敏感度的函数（分别由基线阈值和平均阈值估计）进行了研究。采用顺序评分法比较了两种方法在总偏差概率图和模式偏差概率图上的视场缺陷明显程度。FDT2与SAP的全局视野指数平均偏差（MD）和模式标准差（PSD）高度相关（r < 0.8; P < 0.001）。在高灵敏度的测试位置（>为25 dB， SAP为25 dB）， FDT2和SAP的阈值估计值呈现出密切的线性关系，斜率约为2.0。然而，在灵敏度较低的测试位置，这种关系要弱得多，不再是线性的。与FDT2相比，SAP显示具有绝对缺陷的测试位置的比例略大（分别为3.0% vs. 2.2%， SAP和FDT2， P < 0.001）。尽管SAP在低灵敏度的测试位置显示重测变异性显著增加（P < 0.001），但变异性和敏感性与FDT2之间没有关系（P = 0.46）。与SAP相比，FDT2在较低灵敏度（SAP阈值）的测试位置表现出较短的测试重测间隔
PURPOSE. To compare test results from second-generation Frequency-Doubling Technology perimetry (FDT2, Humphrey Matrix; Carl-Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA) and standard automated perimetry (SAP) in patients with glaucoma. Specifically, to examine the relationship between visual field sensitivity and test-retest variability and to compare total and pattern deviation probability maps between both techniques.METHODS. Fifteen patients with glaucoma who had early to moderately advanced visual field loss with SAP (mean MD, -4.0 dB; range, +0.2 to -16.1) were enrolled in the study. Patients attended three sessions. During each session, one eye was examined twice with FDT2 (24-2 threshold test) and twice with SAP (Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm [SITA] Standard 24-2 test), in random order. We compared threshold values between FDT2 and SAP at test locations with similar visual field coordinates. Test-retest variability, established in terms of test-retest intervals and standard deviations (SDs), was investigated as a function of visual field sensitivity (estimated by baseline threshold and mean threshold, respectively). The magnitude of visual field defects apparent in total and pattern deviation probability maps were compared between both techniques by ordinal scoring.RESULTS. The global visual field indices mean deviation (MD) and pattern standard deviation (PSD) of FDT2 and SAP correlated highly (r > 0.8; P < 0.001). At test locations with high sensitivity (>25 dB with SAP), threshold estimates from FDT2 and SAP exhibited a close, linear relationship, with a slope of approximately 2.0. However, at test locations with lower sensitivity, the relationship was much weaker and ceased to be linear. In comparison with FDT2, SAP showed a slightly larger proportion of test locations with absolute defects (3.0% vs. 2.2% with SAP and FDT2, respectively, P < 0.001). Whereas SAP showed a significant increase in test-retest variability at test locations with lower sensitivity (P < 0.001), there was no relationship between variability and sensitivity with FDT2 (P = 0.46). In comparison with SAP, FDT2 exhibited narrower test-retest intervals at test locations with lower sensitivity (SAP thresholds