A Comparison of Catch Trial Methods Used in Standard Automated Perimetry in Glaucoma Patients

Wall, Michael; Doyle, Carrie K.; Brito, Caridad F.; Woodward, K. R.; Johnson, Chris A.

doi:10.1097/ijg.0b013e318168f03e

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, there is a previous report which suggested the FPs with the SITA algorithm are underestimated compared with those in the Full-Threshold test, which uses the classic catch trials. 21 Also, as shown in Table 4, the mean rates of FL, FP, FN were low compared with GT indices. This may have contributed to the small effect of traditional indices and the selection of GT indices in the best models.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

An Objective Evaluation of Gaze Tracking in Humphrey Perimetry and the Relation With the Reproducibility of Visual Fields: A Pilot Study in Glaucoma

Ishiyama¹,

Murata²,

Mayama³

et al. 2014

Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

An Objective Evaluation of Gaze Tracking in Humphrey Perimetry and the Relation With the Reproducibility of Visual Fields: A Pilot Study in Glaucoma

Ishiyama¹,

Murata²,

Mayama³

et al. 2014

Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similar studies that used either the HFA with the 30-2 pattern 16 or the Octopus perimeter 17 had results that were similar but not identical to ours. Thresholding algorithms may also alter results given that prior work showed significantly fewer FNs 21 and FPs 22 in tests incorporating SITA as compared to tests utilizing a full threshold algorithm. This suggests that although our results may be generalizable to different machines and testing algorithms, further research must be done to determine the true quantitative impact of VF metrics in different test scenarios.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence-based Criteria for Assessment of Visual Field Reliability

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Assess the impact of false positives (FPs), false negatives (FNs), fixation losses (FLs) and test duration (TD) on visual field (VF) reliability at different stages of glaucoma severity. Participants 10,262 VFs from 1,538 eyes of 909 subjects with suspect or manifest glaucoma and ≥5 VF examinations. Design Retrospective. Methods Predicted mean deviation (MD) was calculated with multilevel modeling of longitudinal data (>5 non-initial VFs). Differences between predicted and observed MD (ΔMD) were calculated as a reliability measure. The impact of FPs, FNs, FLs and TD on ΔMD was assessed using multi-level modelling. Main outcome measure ΔMD associated with a 10% increment in FPs, FNs, and FLs, or a 1-minute change in test duration. Results FLs had little impact on ΔMD (<0.2 dB per 10% abnormal catch trials) and no level of FL produced ≥ 1 dB of ΔMD at any disease stage. FPs yielded greater than expected MD, with a 10% increment in abnormal catch trials associated with a ΔMD=0.42, 0.73, and 0.66 dB in mild (MD>−6 dB), moderate (−6≤MD<−12 dB), and severe (−12≤MD≤−20 dB) disease, respectively, up to 20% abnormal catch trials, and a ΔMD=1.57, 2.06, and 3.53 dB beyond 20% abnormal catch trials. FNs generally produced observed MDs below expected MDs. FNs were minimally impactful up to 20% abnormal catch trials (ΔMD per 10% increment >−0.14 dB at all levels of severity). Beyond 20% abnormal catch trials, each 10% increment in abnormal FN catch trials was associated with a ΔMD=−1.27, −0.53, and −0.51 dB in mild, moderate and severe disease. |ΔMD|≥1dB occurred with 22% FPs and 26% FNs in early, 14% FPs and 34% FNs in moderate, and 16% FPs and 51% FNs in severe disease. A 1-minute increment in TD produced a ΔMD between −0.35 and −0.40 depending on disease severity. Conclusion FLs have little impact on test reliability in established glaucoma patients. FPs, and to a lesser extent FNs and test duration, impact reliability significantly. The impact of FP and FN varies with disease severity and over the range of abnormal catch trials. Based on our findings, we present evidence-based severity-specific standards for classifying VF reliability are presented for clinical or research applications.

show abstract

“…The generalizability of our study to different perimeters and testing algorithms other than the SITA standard strategy and 24-2 pattern may also be limited; prior studies have shown, for instance, that there are overall significantly fewer FNs and FPs in tests incorporating SITA compared with a full threshold algorithm. 13,14 Our analyses also did not include some factors that have been shown to predict the reliability of VFs, including technician comments, patient experience with VF testing, or gaze tracking. 15,16 Last, our study did not use serial repeated measures of VFs to assess reliability; Bengtsson's approach of repeated measures (having patients repeat VF within 1 week) to measure reliability is certainly a viable alternative methodology, although it is impractical to apply to this methodology to a large sample of clinical patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors Predicting a Greater Likelihood of Poor Visual Field Reliability in Glaucoma Patients and Suspects

Aboobakar

Wang

Chauhan

et al. 2020

Trans. Vis. Sci. Tech.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citation: Aboobakar IF, Wang J, Chauhan BC, Boland MV, Friedman DS, Ramulu PY, Yohannan J. Factors predicting a greater likelihood of poor visual field reliability in glaucoma patients and suspects. Trans Vis Sci Tech. 2020;9(1):4, https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.9.1.4Purpose: Identify factors predicting worse or better than expected visual field (VF) performance. Methods:A total of 10,262 VFs from 1538 eyes of 909 subjects with manifest or suspected glaucoma were analyzed. Linear mixed-effects models predicted mean deviation (MD) at each timepoint. Differences between observed and predicted MD ( MD) were calculated and logistic regression identified factors predicting lower than expected ( MD <−1 dB) or higher than expected ( MD >1 dB) sensitivity.Results: Both higher and lower than expected sensitivity were more likely in VFs with severe compared with mild damage (relative risk [RR] >1.3, P < 0.05). Higher than expected sensitivity was more likely in VFs with moderate damage (RR = 2.57, P < 0.001). False-positive (FP) errors increased the likelihood of higher than expected sensitivity at all disease stages (RR >2.1 per 10% increase, P < 0.001), whereas false-negative (FN) errors increased the likelihood of lower than expected sensitivity in mild and moderate disease (RR >1.19 per 10% increase, P < 0.05). Fixation loss errors slightly increased the likelihood of higher than expected VF sensitivity in moderate and severe disease (RR >1.1 per 10% increase, P < 0.01). Longer test duration increased likelihood of lower than expected sensitivity at all disease stages (RR >1.36 per minute increase, P < 0.001). Lower than expected sensitivity was more likely in late afternoon tests (RR = 1.27, P < 0.01). A total of 26.6% of VFs had higher or lower than expected sensitivity in the absence of FPs, FNs, or fixation losses. Conclusions:FPs, test duration, and FNs are the primary measures predicting if a VF is likely to be reliable, although tests with normal reliability measures may still be unreliable. Our results help clinicians judge VF reliability and highlight the need to integrate reliability measures with other clinical data when making treatment decisions.Translational Relevance: This likelihood model derived from a large dataset helps clinicians identify VFs that may either falsely suggest disease progression or mask true worsening, thereby improving the utility of VFs in clinical practice.

show abstract

A Comparison of Catch Trial Methods Used in Standard Automated Perimetry in Glaucoma Patients

Abstract: The RTW method seems to underestimate FP response rates.

Cited by 10 publications

References 13 publications

An Objective Evaluation of Gaze Tracking in Humphrey Perimetry and the Relation With the Reproducibility of Visual Fields: A Pilot Study in Glaucoma

An Objective Evaluation of Gaze Tracking in Humphrey Perimetry and the Relation With the Reproducibility of Visual Fields: A Pilot Study in Glaucoma

Evidence-based Criteria for Assessment of Visual Field Reliability

Factors Predicting a Greater Likelihood of Poor Visual Field Reliability in Glaucoma Patients and Suspects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About