Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 6, 2026
07:11
Assessing Early Stage Open-Angle Glaucoma in Patients by Isolated-Check Visual Evoked Potential
Published on: May 25, 2020
Identifying glaucomatous vision loss with visual-function-specific perimetry in the diagnostic innovations in
Pamela A Sample1, Felipe A Medeiros, Lyne Racette
1Visual Function Laboratory and Hamilton Glaucoma Center, Department of Ophthalmology, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, 92093, USA. psample@glaucoma.ucsd.edu
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science
|August 1, 2006
Summary
Frequency-doubling technology perimetry (FDT) demonstrated superior sensitivity in detecting visual field abnormalities compared to other methods. While no single test was consistently superior, FDT and standard automated perimetry (SAP) showed promise for glaucoma diagnosis.
Area of Science:
- Ophthalmology
- Visual Psychophysics
- Medical Diagnostics
Background:
- Glaucoma diagnosis relies on detecting progressive optic neuropathy (PGON) and glaucomatous optic neuropathy (GON).
- Perimetric tests assess visual field deficits to aid in diagnosis.
- Comparing diagnostic performance of different perimetry techniques is crucial for clinical utility.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the diagnostic accuracy of four perimetric tests: short-wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP), frequency-doubling technology perimetry (FDT), high-pass resolution perimetry (HPRP), and standard automated perimetry (SAP).
- To identify specific parameters within each test that are most effective for determining visual field abnormality in glaucoma patients.
Main Methods:
- A cohort of 246 eyes was analyzed, including those with GON, PGON, ocular hypertension, and normal controls.
- Four perimetric tests (SWAP, FDT, HPRP, SAP) were administered to all participants.
- Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were employed to calculate areas under the curve (AUC) and assess sensitivity at various specificities.
Main Results:
- Frequency-doubling technology perimetry (FDT) exhibited higher sensitivity across all parameters compared to other tests at specified specificities.
- Area under the curve (AUC) analysis indicated FDT's superior performance in differentiating normal eyes from those with GON and PGON.
- Agreement among tests for abnormality detection was fair to moderate, but affected visual field quadrants were consistent across tests when deficits were present.
Conclusions:
- No single perimetric test consistently identified abnormalities while others remained normal at equal specificity.
- Frequency-doubling technology perimetry (FDT) demonstrated the highest overall sensitivity for detecting visual field defects.
- Standard automated perimetry (SAP) performance was comparable to previous reports, and all tested methods identified consistent areas of retinal damage.
