May 2007
Volume 48, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2007
A Comparison of Catch Trial Methods Used in Conventional Perimetry in Glaucoma Patients
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • C. K. Doyle
    Veterans Administration Hospital, Iowa City, Iowa
  • C. F. Brito
    Department of Psychology, Eastern Illinois University, Charlestown, Illinois
  • K. R. Woodward
    Veterans Administration Hospital, Iowa City, Iowa
  • C. A. Johnson
    Discoveries in Sight, Devers Eye Institute, Portland, Oregon
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
  • M. Wall
    Veterans Administration Hospital, Iowa City, Iowa
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships C.K. Doyle, None; C.F. Brito, None; K.R. Woodward, None; C.A. Johnson, None; M. Wall, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support VA Merit Review
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2007, Vol.48, 1627. doi:https://doi.org/
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      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)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract
 
Purpose:
 

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.

 
Methods:
 

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.

 
Results:
 

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.  

 
Conclusions:
 

The response time window method is not a good predictor of false positive rates obtained using the blank presentation procedure.

 
Keywords: perimetry • visual fields 
×
×

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.

×