BJO

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER


[Advanced]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Casson, R.
Right arrow Articles by Ali, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Casson, R.
Right arrow Articles by Ali, H.
Br J Ophthalmol 2001;85:360-362 ( March )

Scientific correspondence

Clinical comparison of frequency doubling technology perimetry and Humphrey perimetry Robert Casson, Bruce James, Adrian Rubinstein, Haggai Ali

Stoke Mandeville Eye Unit, Aylesbury, Bucks HP21 8AL, UK

Correspondence to: Bruce James cbjames{at}lineone.net

Accepted for publication 5 October 2000

AIM---To determine the number of missed points on frequency doubling technology (FDT) perimetry that optimise the sensitivity and specificity of the test and to determine the topographical accuracy of the test in a clinical setting.
METHODS---In a prospective study, the perimetric data from 99 patients who underwent both FDT perimetry in the screening mode and Humphrey 24-2 (H24-2) were used to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the FDT perimetry compared with the full threshold H24-2 as the gold standard.
RESULTS---Missed points on the FDT perimetry correlated with both the mean deviation and the corrected pattern standard deviation on the Humphrey perimetry. A score assigned to abnormal points on the FDT perimetry and the Humphrey total deviation plot showed a significant correlation for both the location and the depth of the defect. In comparing the Humphrey hemifield test with the FDT perimetry results, if at least one missed point on the frequency doubling test was considered as abnormal then the overall sensitivity of the test was 78.1% and the specificity was 89.1%.
CONCLUSION---FDT perimetry in the screening mode performed in a clinical setting was highly specific, exhibited reasonable sensitivity, and accurately determined the location and depth of scotomas when compared with the full threshold Humphrey 24-2.

© 2001 by British Journal of Ophthalmology


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 IOVSHome page
L. Racette, F. A. Medeiros, L. M. Zangwill, D. Ng, R. N. Weinreb, and P. A. Sample
Diagnostic Accuracy of the Matrix 24-2 and Original N-30 Frequency-Doubling Technology Tests Compared with Standard Automated Perimetry
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., March 1, 2008; 49(3): 954 - 960.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br. J. Ophthalmol.Home page
P G D Spry, H M Hussin, and J M Sparrow
Performance of the 24-2-5 frequency doubling technology screening test: a prospective case study
Br. J. Ophthalmol., October 1, 2007; 91(10): 1345 - 1349.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br. J. Ophthalmol.Home page
P G D Spry, H M Hussin, and J M Sparrow
Clinical evaluation of frequency doubling technology perimetry using the Humphrey Matrix 24-2 threshold strategy
Br. J. Ophthalmol., August 1, 2005; 89(8): 1031 - 1035.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 IOVSHome page
A. J. Anderson, C. A. Johnson, M. Fingeret, J. L. Keltner, P. G. D. Spry, M. Wall, and J. S. Werner
Characteristics of the Normative Database for the Humphrey Matrix Perimeter
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., April 1, 2005; 46(4): 1540 - 1548.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2001 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.