Visual field progression with frequency-doubling matrix perimetry and standard automated perimetry in patients with...

A new analysis method called permutation of pointwise linear regression measures the significance of deterioration over time at each visual field location, combines the significance values into an overall statistic, and then determines the likelihood of change in the visual field. Because the outcome is a single P value, individualized to that specific visual field and independent of the scale of the original measurement, the method is well suited for comparing techniques with different stimuli and scales.

To test the hypothesis that frequency-doubling matrix perimetry (FDT2) is more sensitive than standard automated perimetry (SAP) in identifying visual field progression in glaucoma.

Patients with open-angle glaucoma and healthy controls were examined by FDT2 and SAP, both with the 24-2 test pattern, on the same day at 6-month intervals in a longitudinal prospective study conducted in a hospital-based setting. Only participants with at least 5 examinations were included.

Data were analyzed with permutation of pointwise linear regression.

Permutation of pointwise linear regression is individualized to each participant, in contrast to current analyses in which the statistical significance is inferred from population-based approaches. Analyses were performed with both total deviation and pattern deviation.

Sixty-four patients and 36 controls were included in the study. The median age, SAP mean deviation, and follow-up period were 65 years, -2.6 dB, and 5.4 years, respectively, in patients and 62 years, +0.4 dB, and 5.2 years, respectively, in controls. Using total deviation analyses, statistically significant deterioration was identified in 17% of patients with FDT2, in 34% of patients with SAP, and in 14% of patients with both techniques; in controls these percentages were 8% with FDT2, 31% with SAP, and 8% with both. Using pattern deviation analyses, statistically significant deterioration was identified in 16% of patients with FDT2, in 17% of patients with SAP, and in 3% of patients with both techniques; in controls these values were 3% with FDT2 and none with SAP.

No evidence was found that FDT2 is more sensitive than SAP in identifying visual field deterioration. In about one-third of healthy controls, age-related deterioration with SAP reached statistical significance.