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

Prema R, George R, Hemamalini A, Sathyamangalam Ve R, Baskaran M, Vijaya L - Indian J Ophthalmol (2009 May-Jun)

Bottom Line: Only reliable fields, where the HFA results corresponded to the disc changes were considered for analysis.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.The Humphrey MATRIX diagnoses were similar to established perimetric standards.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Vision Research Foundation, Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai, India.

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.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Reports of reliable SITA std and humphrey MATRIX tests showing similar visual field defects
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2683443&req=5

Figure 0001: Reports of reliable SITA std and humphrey MATRIX tests showing similar visual field defects

Mentions: Recruited subjects underwent a repeat perimetric examination with both the HFA and Humphrey MATRIX performed on the same day. Only these results were considered for analysis. The testing strategy used on the HFA was SITA Standard 30–2 (HFA II) (750 I series, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA, USA) and 30–2 FDT threshold on the MATRIX, which uses a ZEST algorithm.[9] Both tests were conducted on the same day, and the order of testing by the two perimetric methods was randomized based on computer-generated random numbers. All subjects have had previous experience with the SITA Standard and the older version of FDT-N30 full threshold strategy. Subjects performed the FDT MATRIX 30–2 program for the first time, thus a demonstration of the test was given prior to FDT MATRIX test. Only eyes with reliable fields on both the HFA and the Humphrey MATRIX were considered for analysis [Fig. 1]. The reliability criteria for both HFA and MATRIX were less than 20% fixation errors and less than 33% false positive and false negative errors. Unreliable fields, rim artifacts, classic cloverleaf patterns and visual field with advanced damage approaching fixation or showing split fixation were excluded from analysis.


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

Prema R, George R, Hemamalini A, Sathyamangalam Ve R, Baskaran M, Vijaya L - Indian J Ophthalmol (2009 May-Jun)

Reports of reliable SITA std and humphrey MATRIX tests showing similar visual field defects
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2683443&req=5

Figure 0001: Reports of reliable SITA std and humphrey MATRIX tests showing similar visual field defects
Mentions: Recruited subjects underwent a repeat perimetric examination with both the HFA and Humphrey MATRIX performed on the same day. Only these results were considered for analysis. The testing strategy used on the HFA was SITA Standard 30–2 (HFA II) (750 I series, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA, USA) and 30–2 FDT threshold on the MATRIX, which uses a ZEST algorithm.[9] Both tests were conducted on the same day, and the order of testing by the two perimetric methods was randomized based on computer-generated random numbers. All subjects have had previous experience with the SITA Standard and the older version of FDT-N30 full threshold strategy. Subjects performed the FDT MATRIX 30–2 program for the first time, thus a demonstration of the test was given prior to FDT MATRIX test. Only eyes with reliable fields on both the HFA and the Humphrey MATRIX were considered for analysis [Fig. 1]. The reliability criteria for both HFA and MATRIX were less than 20% fixation errors and less than 33% false positive and false negative errors. Unreliable fields, rim artifacts, classic cloverleaf patterns and visual field with advanced damage approaching fixation or showing split fixation were excluded from analysis.

Bottom Line: Only reliable fields, where the HFA results corresponded to the disc changes were considered for analysis.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.The Humphrey MATRIX diagnoses were similar to established perimetric standards.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Vision Research Foundation, Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai, India.

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.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus