May 2008
Volume 49, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2008
Frequency Doubling Technology Perimetry Repeatability in a Developing Country
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • H. Pham
    Dept of Ophthalmology, Devers Eye Institute, Portland, Oregon
  • D. C. Gritz
    Dept of Ophthalmology, Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, California
  • S. R. Krishnadas
    Dept of Ophthalmology, Aravind Eye Research Foundation, Madurai, India
  • C. A. Johnson
    Dept of Ophthalmology, Devers Eye Institute/Discoveries in Sight, Portland, Oregon
  • S. L. Mansberger
    Dept of Ophthalmology, Devers Eye Institute/Discoveries in Sight, Portland, Oregon
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  H. Pham, None; D.C. Gritz, None; S.R. Krishnadas, None; C.A. Johnson, Welch Allyn, F; Welch Allyn, C; S.L. Mansberger, Heidelberg, R.
  • Footnotes
    Support  Good Samaritan Foundation and Oregon Lions Sight and Hearing Foundation
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2008, Vol.49, 1084. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      H. Pham, D. C. Gritz, S. R. Krishnadas, C. A. Johnson, S. L. Mansberger; Frequency Doubling Technology Perimetry Repeatability in a Developing Country. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2008;49(13):1084.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Purpose: : To determine the repeatability of Frequency Doubling Technology (FDT) perimetry over a long-term period in a rural location of a developing nation.

Methods: : We defined a screening failure as one area of abnormal sensitivity on initial and subsequent testing and an unreliable FDT as 33% fixation losses or false positives. We performed FDT perimetry (C-20-5) at baseline and 3 years laterin 256 non-English speaking residents of Southern India. We excluded patients with unreliable results in either eye with baseline testing. We defined a repeatable result if the result was a screening failure or screening pass for both baseline and follow-up testing. We used kappa statistics, correlation analyses, and Bland-Altman plots to examine repeatability. We controlled for inter-eye dependence using generalized estimating equations.

Results: : We tested 512 eyes of 256 participants in 2000 and 2003, and include 458 participants (89.5%) with reliable baseline FDT results. Overall, 288/458 (62.9%) had repeatable results over the 3-year test period. Of those with repeatable results, 258/288 (90%) eyes remained as a screening pass and 30/288 (10%) remained as a screening failure. Of those with nonrepeatable results, 85/170 (50%) eyes with screening pass results converted to screening failure results, 24/170 (14%) of those with screening failure results converted to screening pass, and 51/170 (30%) had screening pass or screening failure results on baseline testing and indeterminate results on follow-up testing. Kappa statistic was 0.21. We found no significant association between repeatability and age, gender, cup to disc ratio, lens opacity classification score, or refractive error (p>0.05). .

Keywords: visual fields • perimetry • clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: systems/equipment/techniques 

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.