April 2010
Volume 51, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2010
Retest Variability and Between-Subject Variation of Automated Kinetic Perimetry in Normal Observers and Patients With Migraine
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • H. Eshtayah
    Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences,
    Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
  • C. E. Maxner
    Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences,
    Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
  • L. Shuba
    Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences,
    Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
  • A. R. Purdy
    Neurology,
    Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
  • P. H. Artes
    Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences,
    Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  H. Eshtayah, None; C.E. Maxner, None; L. Shuba, None; A.R. Purdy, None; P.H. Artes, Haag-Streit, Switzerland, F.
  • Footnotes
    Support  None.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2010, Vol.51, 2337. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      H. Eshtayah, C. E. Maxner, L. Shuba, A. R. Purdy, P. H. Artes; Retest Variability and Between-Subject Variation of Automated Kinetic Perimetry in Normal Observers and Patients With Migraine. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2010;51(13):2337.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract
 
Purpose:
 

To determine retest variability and between-subject variation of Automated Kinetic Perimetry in normal observers and patients with migraine.

 
Methods:
 

Normal observers (n=26; mean age 41 y, range 15-67 y) and patients with migraine (n=13, mean age 48 y, range 21-55 y) were examined with a fully automated kinetic perimetry program (Octopus 900, Haag-Streit, Switzerland) on two separate study visits within two weeks. The program examined 3 isopters (I4e, I2e, I1e) at stimulus velocities of 5°, 4°, and 3°/s respectively. For every isopter, 12 stimulus vectors were presented at meridians spaced 30° apart, in random order, and each isopter was measured 3 times. Patients with migraine had been diagnosed by a neuro-ophthalmologist according to criteria of the International Headache Society.

 
Results:
 

No statistically significant differences in isopter area were observed between migraine patients and normal observers (p>0.05, Mann-Whitney U). Apart from a small though statistically significant (5% [-0.02 log], p=0.02) decrease in the area of the I1e isopter on the second visit, no learning- or practice effects were observed between both sessions. Retest variability, expressed as a proportion of isopter area, was largest with the I1e isopter (approximately 40%) and least with the I4e isopter (approximately 12%). However, the ratio of between- to within-subject variation was similar with the 3 isopters (Table 1).

 
Conclusions:
 

We did not identify visual field losses to kinetic stimuli in patients with a history of migraine. Considering the excellent retest characteristics of the peripheral isopters, Automated Kinetic Perimetry should be further evaluated as an alternative to manual Goldmann or automated static suprathreshold perimetry for the surveillance of the peripheral visual field, for example in drug safety studies.Table 1: Isopter area, 95% retest intervals, retest variability (SD), and ratio of between- to within-subject variation (combined group of participants).  

 
Keywords: visual fields • neuro-ophthalmology: diagnosis • perimetry 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×