Purchase this article with an account.
C. A. Johnson, J. S. Werner, A. J. Anderson; Evaluation of the Humphrey Matrix Perimeter for Measurement of the Central 10 Degree Visual Field of Patients With Age-Related Macular Degeneration. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2007;48(13):2164.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
To determine the agreement between the results of the Humphrey Matrix Frequency Doubling Technology (FDT) perimeter 10-2 test procedure and the 10-2 Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) standard automated perimeter test in patients with age related macular degeneration (ARMD).
Ninety-one eyes of 62 patients with ARMD (75.5 years ± 6.02 years) were evaluated with the 10-2 central visual field program (SITA Standard strategy, 68 locations) of the HFA and the 10-2 central visual field program (ZEST strategy, 44 locations) of the Matrix. To be eligible for the study, participants had to have a diagnosis of ARMD (one or both eyes) with no other ocular or neurologic disorders, a best-corrected visual acuity of 20/200 or better, a recent eye examination, a minimal amount of cataract development, and the ability to produce reliable visual field information. Visual field indices Mean Deviation (MD) and Pattern Standard Deviation (PSD), percentage of points outside normal limits (probability levels for Total and Pattern Deviation) and test time were evaluated.
Both MD and PSD were significantly correlated for the two devices (r=0.76 and r=0.72 respectively, p< 0.0001). Test time for the Matrix (4.4 ± 0.21 minutes) was lower than for the HFA (6.88 ± 1.59 minutes), reflecting the reduced number of points that were tested by the Matrix. The percentage of test locations abnormal at the 5% level on Pattern Deviation plots was slightly greater (average 3.6%, or 1.6 Matrix locations) in the Matrix (paired t-test, p<0.01). The percentage of points abnormal at the 5% level was not significantly different between tests for Total Deviation plots (p=0.29).
Although global visual field indices (MD & PSD) show good agreement between the two tests, on average the Matrix 10-2 reveals a slightly larger area of visual field loss in ARMD than does the HFA 10-2. In addition, examination times can be shortened by approximately a third by using the Matrix.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only