z-logo
Premium
Inter‐test variability in normals and glaucomatous patients tested by Optopol PTS‐910, Glaucoma program
Author(s) -
POPA CHERECHEANU A,
DASCALU AM,
STANA D,
SERBAN D
Publication year - 2013
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.1755-3768.2013.t059.x
Subject(s) - glaucoma , medicine , ophthalmology , visual field , blind spot , stage (stratigraphy) , optometry , optic disc , retinal , computer science , biology , artificial intelligence , paleontology
Purpose To quantify the inter‐test variability (dB) for the Optopol automated perimeter, Glaucoma Fast Treshold program, in normals and glaucoma patients. Methods A prospective study was performed on 204 glaucoma patients and a control group of 30 normal subjects, tested by complete ophthalmological exam and automated perimetry (Optopol PTS‐910). The visual field was tested weekly for 4 consecutive weeks, using the Glaucoma Fast Threshold strategy. The visual field defects were classified according to the Aulhorn‐Karmeyer descriptive scale. Results For the control group, the average inter‐test variability was of 1.57+/‐ 0.24 dB, lower next to fixation and increasing towards the 50 degree isopter. The average inter‐test variability increases along with the perimetric stage: 1.57+/‐0.66 dB for pre‐perimetric glaucoma, 2.13+1.04 dB for non‐specific defects group, 3.23 + 1.01dB for the stage 1, 3.52 + 2.61dB, for the stage 2, 3.65 + 1.19dB for the stage 3 and 5.82 +/‐ 1.67dB for the stage 4. For the cases of preperimetric glaucoma and non‐specific defects, a similar profile of variability as for the normal subjects could be observed. For the stages 2‐4, the profile of the areas with maxim inter‐test variability moves towards the relative scotoma and the surrounding area. Conclusion A better description of the inter‐test variability and the evolution of this intricate parameter of the retinal light sensitivity is useful for the differential diagnostic between the real change and the « background noise » in early detection of the functional progression in glaucoma.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here