Premium
Reliability and diagnostic significance of frequency doubling visual field testing
Author(s) -
SAEDON H,
HAMADA S,
TAHHAN M
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
acta ophthalmologica
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.534
H-Index - 87
eISSN - 1755-3768
pISSN - 1755-375X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2008.505.x
Subject(s) - repeatability , medicine , glaucoma , visual field test , referral , reliability (semiconductor) , visual field , optometry , visual field loss , ophthalmology , pediatrics , mathematics , family medicine , statistics , power (physics) , physics , quantum mechanics
Abstract Purpose The aims of this study were to compare results of Frequency Doubling Perimetry (FDP) with the gold standard of Humphrey Visual Field Testing (HVF). To determine the reliability and repeatability of FDP, and whether referrals had diagnostic significance. Methods Notes collected of patients referred from the community because of abnormal visual fields, tested by FDP. Information gathered on proforma included reason for referral, place of referral, number of defects in both eyes, whether they were repeatable, consistent with HVF, reliability, follow‐up and diagnosis. Results 49 case notes were collected and reviewed, 98 eyes included. 31 females (63%), 18 males (37%). Mean age 59.5. All patients were referred because of VF defect. In 21 patients (43%), this was the only reason for referral. FDP showed poor consistency with HVF. This may be because it detects field loss earlier in the disease process. However, there was a lack of repeatability in FDP testing. In 29% of referrals, tests were not repeated, even though each test takes less than 90 seconds. FDP showed high reliability, possibly because it is a shorter test, simpler to perform and requiring less concentration Most patients were discharged at first or second appointment. Patients were seen an average of 2.6 times. The number diagnosed with glaucoma are very low (3), and the number labelled ‘glaucoma suspects’ higher (6). These patients are unlikely to have been detected without this technology. Conclusion In our study, FDP showed poor correlation with HVF. The lack of repeatability between field defects in FDP casts doubts on its validity of screening for glaucoma.Most patients were not diagnosed with glaucoma, ocular hypertension or glaucoma suspects following assessment.