Comparison of Humphrey MATRIX and Swedish interactive threshold algorithm standard strategy in detecting early glaucomatous visual field loss

Raju Prema, Ronnie George, Arvind Hemamalini, Ramesh Sathyamangalam Ve, Mani Baskaran, Lingam Vijaya, Raju Prema, Ronnie George, Arvind Hemamalini, Ramesh Sathyamangalam Ve, Mani Baskaran, Lingam Vijaya

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the Humphrey MATRIX visual field (frequency doubling technology threshold) and Swedish interactive threshold algorithm (SITA) standard strategy white on white perimetry in detecting glaucomatous visual field loss.

Material and methods: Twenty-eight adult subjects, diagnosed to have glaucoma at a tertiary eye care hospital, who fulfilled the inclusion criteria, were included in this prospective study. All subjects underwent a complete ophthalmic examination. Subjects with glaucomatous optic disc changes underwent repeat perimetric examination on the same day with the Humphrey visual field analyzer (HFA II) and Humphrey MATRIX, the order of testing being random. Only reliable fields, where the HFA results corresponded to the disc changes were considered for analysis. A cumulative defect depth in each hemifield in both HFA and MATRIX reports was calculated.

Results: Thirty-seven eyes of 24 subjects had reliable fields corresponding to optic disc changes. The mean age of the subjects was 56 +/- 12 years. There were 12 males and 12 females. The test duration was significantly less on the MATRIX, mean difference in test duration was -81 +/- 81.3 sec ( p p = 0.55, p = 0.64 respectively) and a positive correlation coefficient of 0.63 and 0.72 respectively. Poor agreement was found with the glaucoma hemifield test.

Conclusion: The Humphrey MATRIX takes less time in performing the test than SITA Standard and shows good correlation for mean deviation and pattern standard deviation. However, the glaucoma hemifield test showed poor agreement. The Humphrey MATRIX diagnoses were similar to established perimetric standards.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Reports of reliable SITA std and humphrey MATRIX tests showing similar visual field defects
Figure 2
Figure 2
The Mean Deviation (MD) showed a positive correlation (r = 0.6) between SITA standard and MATRIX. The regression equation for linear trend was: MATRIX MD = −0.85 + 0.64 × HVF MD, R2: 0.41
Figure 3
Figure 3
The pattern standard deviation (PSD) showed a positive correlation (r = 0.7) between SITA standard and MATRIX. The regression equation for linear trend was: MATRIX PSD = 2.22 + 0.57 × HVF PSD, R2: 0.45

References

    1. Trible JR, Schultz RO, Robinson JC, Rothe TL. Accuracy of Glaucoma detection with frequency doubling perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129:740–5.
    1. Anderson AJ, Johnson CA. Frequency doubling technology perimetry. Ophthalmol Clin North Am. 2003;16:213–25.
    1. Cello KE, Nelson-Quigg JM, Johnson CA. Frequency doubling technique perimetry for detection of glaucomatous visual field loss. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129:314–22.
    1. Kogure S, Toda Y, Crabb D, Kashiwaqi K, Fitzke FX, Tsukahara S. Agreement between frequency doubling perimetry and static perimetry in eyes with high tension glaucoma and normal tension glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87:604–8.
    1. Anderson AJ, Johnson CA, Fingeret M, Keltner KL, Spry PG, Wall M, et al. Characteristics of the normative database for the humphrey matrix perimeter. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:1540–8.
    1. White AR, Sun H, Swanson WH, Lee BB. An examination of physiological mechanisms underlying the frequency-doubling illusion. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:3590–9.
    1. Turpin A, McKendrick AM, Johnson CA, Vingrys AJ. Development of Efficient test strategies for frequency doubling technology perimetry using computer simulation (ZEST algorithm) Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:322–31.
    1. Turpin A, McKendrick AM, Johnson CA, Algis J, Vingrys AJ. Performance of Efficient test procedures for Frequency Doubling Technique Perimetry in normal and glaucomatous eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:709–15.
    1. Turpin A, McKendrick AM, Johnson CA, Vingrys AJ. Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from full threshold, ZEST and SITA-like strategies, as determined by computer simulation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:4787–95.
    1. Artes PH, Hutchinson DM, Nicolela MT, LeBlanc RP, Chauhan BC. Threshold and variability properties of matrix frequency doubling technique and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:2451–7.
    1. Spry PG, Hussin HM, Sparrow JM. Clinical evaluation of frequency doubling technique perimetry using humphrey matrix 24-2 threshold strategy. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89:1031–5.
    1. Medeiros FA, Sample PA, Zangwill LM, Liebmann JM, Girkin CA, Weinreb RN. A statistical approach to the evaluation of covariate effects on the receiver operating characteristic curves of diagnostic tests in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:2520–7.
    1. Anderson DR, Patella VM. Automated static perimetry. 2nd ed. CV Mosby Publishers; 1999.
    1. Hodapp E, Parrish RK, 2nd, Anderson DR. Clinical decision in glaucoma. St Louis: The CV Mosby Comp; 1993. pp. 52–61.
    1. Fingeret M, Lewis TL. Primary care of the glaucoma. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill Publishers; 2001.
    1. Swanson HW, Dull MW, Fischer SE. Quantifying effects of retinal illuminance on frequency doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:235–40.
    1. Quigley HA. Identification of glaucoma related visual field abnormality with the screening protocol of frequency doubling technique. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;125:819–29.
    1. Burnstein Y, Ellish NJ, Mabalon M, Higginbotham EJ. Comparison of frequency doubling perimetry with humphrey visual field analysis in a glaucoma practice. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129:328–33.
    1. Brusini P, Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, Parisi L. Frequency doubling technology perimetry with the humphrey matrix 30-2 test. J Glaucoma. 2006;15:77–83.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren