Purchase this article with an account.
C. K. Doyle, C. F. Brito, K. R. Woodward, C. A. Johnson, M. Wall; A Comparison of Catch Trial Methods Used in Conventional Perimetry in Glaucoma Patients. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2007;48(13):1627. doi: https://doi.org/.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
To compare the false positive rates between two different methods for estimating false positive catch trials used by the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) in glaucoma patients.
One eye of 120 Glaucoma patients was tested twice within 2 months with Size III 24-2 SITA Standard and Size V 24-2 Full Threshold perimetric test procedures. False positive (FP) rates were obtained with the response time window method (RTW) used by SITA and the blank presentation (BP) method of the size V full threshold procedure. False negative (FN) catch trial rates were also examined. Wilcoxon tests were used to examine error rates, and FP rates for visit 1 and 2 were regressed to investigate their relationship.
Glaucoma patients had higher mean FP rates with RTW than BP on visit 1 (p=0.006, 2.3% vs. 1.68%) and higher mean FN rates as well (p=0.001; 4.1% vs. 1.7%; Table). When comparing visit 2, glaucoma patients had significantly higher FN’s rates with RTW than BP (p=0.001; 3.61% vs. 1.22%). Linear regression indicated that, for visit 1 in glaucoma patients, FP rates in RTW accounted for only 6.63% of the variability in BP error rates; and only 3.88% in visit 2.
The response time window method is not a good predictor of false positive rates obtained using the blank presentation procedure.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only