Ted Maddess, Corinne F Carle, Maria Kolic, Özge Saraç, Rohan W Essex, Emilie M F Rohan, Faran Sabeti, Josh P van Kleef
{"title":"青光眼客观周边测量法的诊断能力和再现性。","authors":"Ted Maddess, Corinne F Carle, Maria Kolic, Özge Saraç, Rohan W Essex, Emilie M F Rohan, Faran Sabeti, Josh P van Kleef","doi":"10.1097/IJG.0000000000002485","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Prcis: </strong>An objective perimetry method provides four 30-2 style reports in 8 minutes. These comprise sensitivity and delay reports for both eyes. A combined report format shows comparable diagnostic power to two forms of automated perimetry.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare objective perimetry with two forms of standard automated perimetry (SAP) in glaucoma.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study cohort contained 40 persons with glaucoma (PwG) and 94 normal control subjects. The PwG had both perimetric and pre-perimetric eyes. Multifocal pupillographic objective perimetry was performed with the objectiveField Analyser® (OFA®), which independently assesses the visual fields of both eyes concurrently. Its OFA30 test assessed the central ±30°, and the OFA15 test assessed the central ±15°, both providing 30-2 style reports. The OFA tests were repeated two weeks apart to assess test-retest variability (TRV). OFA was compared with Matrix and HFA-SITA fast 24-2 threshold testing. Diagnostic power was quantified as area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC). Test durations, Mean Defects and Pattern Standard Deviations of the 4 tests were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At a median of 4.09±0.02 minutes/eye the OFA tests were quicker than SAP (all P≤0.0001), 2 minutes/eye if OFA per-region sensitivities and delays are considered separately. The %AUROCs for OFA, Matrix and HFA were not significantly different, averaging 93±3% (mean±SD) in perimetric eyes, and 73±6% in pre-perimetric eyes. For moderate to severe fields OFA TRV was less than published results for SAP. OFA30 mean defects were significantly correlated between repeats (r=0.91), and with OFA15 (r=0.93, both P<0.0001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>OFA provides extra functional measures in the form of per-region delays, and between-eye asymmetries. Both the OFA wide-field and macular tests provided comparable diagnostic power to SAP and better TRV in damaged eyes.</p>","PeriodicalId":15938,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Glaucoma","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic Power and Reproducibility of Objective Perimetry in Glaucoma.\",\"authors\":\"Ted Maddess, Corinne F Carle, Maria Kolic, Özge Saraç, Rohan W Essex, Emilie M F Rohan, Faran Sabeti, Josh P van Kleef\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/IJG.0000000000002485\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Prcis: </strong>An objective perimetry method provides four 30-2 style reports in 8 minutes. These comprise sensitivity and delay reports for both eyes. A combined report format shows comparable diagnostic power to two forms of automated perimetry.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare objective perimetry with two forms of standard automated perimetry (SAP) in glaucoma.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study cohort contained 40 persons with glaucoma (PwG) and 94 normal control subjects. The PwG had both perimetric and pre-perimetric eyes. Multifocal pupillographic objective perimetry was performed with the objectiveField Analyser® (OFA®), which independently assesses the visual fields of both eyes concurrently. Its OFA30 test assessed the central ±30°, and the OFA15 test assessed the central ±15°, both providing 30-2 style reports. The OFA tests were repeated two weeks apart to assess test-retest variability (TRV). OFA was compared with Matrix and HFA-SITA fast 24-2 threshold testing. Diagnostic power was quantified as area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC). Test durations, Mean Defects and Pattern Standard Deviations of the 4 tests were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At a median of 4.09±0.02 minutes/eye the OFA tests were quicker than SAP (all P≤0.0001), 2 minutes/eye if OFA per-region sensitivities and delays are considered separately. The %AUROCs for OFA, Matrix and HFA were not significantly different, averaging 93±3% (mean±SD) in perimetric eyes, and 73±6% in pre-perimetric eyes. For moderate to severe fields OFA TRV was less than published results for SAP. OFA30 mean defects were significantly correlated between repeats (r=0.91), and with OFA15 (r=0.93, both P<0.0001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>OFA provides extra functional measures in the form of per-region delays, and between-eye asymmetries. Both the OFA wide-field and macular tests provided comparable diagnostic power to SAP and better TRV in damaged eyes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15938,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Glaucoma\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Glaucoma\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000002485\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Glaucoma","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000002485","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Diagnostic Power and Reproducibility of Objective Perimetry in Glaucoma.
Prcis: An objective perimetry method provides four 30-2 style reports in 8 minutes. These comprise sensitivity and delay reports for both eyes. A combined report format shows comparable diagnostic power to two forms of automated perimetry.
Purpose: To compare objective perimetry with two forms of standard automated perimetry (SAP) in glaucoma.
Methods: The study cohort contained 40 persons with glaucoma (PwG) and 94 normal control subjects. The PwG had both perimetric and pre-perimetric eyes. Multifocal pupillographic objective perimetry was performed with the objectiveField Analyser® (OFA®), which independently assesses the visual fields of both eyes concurrently. Its OFA30 test assessed the central ±30°, and the OFA15 test assessed the central ±15°, both providing 30-2 style reports. The OFA tests were repeated two weeks apart to assess test-retest variability (TRV). OFA was compared with Matrix and HFA-SITA fast 24-2 threshold testing. Diagnostic power was quantified as area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC). Test durations, Mean Defects and Pattern Standard Deviations of the 4 tests were compared.
Results: At a median of 4.09±0.02 minutes/eye the OFA tests were quicker than SAP (all P≤0.0001), 2 minutes/eye if OFA per-region sensitivities and delays are considered separately. The %AUROCs for OFA, Matrix and HFA were not significantly different, averaging 93±3% (mean±SD) in perimetric eyes, and 73±6% in pre-perimetric eyes. For moderate to severe fields OFA TRV was less than published results for SAP. OFA30 mean defects were significantly correlated between repeats (r=0.91), and with OFA15 (r=0.93, both P<0.0001).
Conclusions: OFA provides extra functional measures in the form of per-region delays, and between-eye asymmetries. Both the OFA wide-field and macular tests provided comparable diagnostic power to SAP and better TRV in damaged eyes.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Glaucoma is a peer reviewed journal addressing the spectrum of issues affecting definition, diagnosis, and management of glaucoma and providing a forum for lively and stimulating discussion of clinical, scientific, and socioeconomic factors affecting care of glaucoma patients.