May 2006
Volume 47, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2006
Variability in Objective and Subjective Perimetry: Comparison Between Humphrey Size III SITA and Accumap mfVEP
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • C.B. Younger
    Ophthalmology, University of Iowa, Iowa CIty, IA
  • C. Brito
    Psychology, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, IL
  • C.K. Doyle
    Ophthalmology, Veterans Administration Hospital, Iowa City, IA
  • K.R. Woodward
    Ophthalmology, Veterans Administration Hospital, Iowa City, IA
  • R.H. Kardon
    Ophthalmology, University of Iowa, Iowa CIty, IA
    Ophthalmology, Veterans Administration Hospital, Iowa City, IA
  • M. Wall
    Ophthalmology, University of Iowa, Iowa CIty, IA
    Ophthalmology, Veterans Administration Hospital, Iowa City, IA
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  C.B. Younger, None; C. Brito, None; C.K. Doyle, None; K.R. Woodward, None; R.H. Kardon, None; M. Wall, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  VA Merit Review
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2006, Vol.47, 3995. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      C.B. Younger, C. Brito, C.K. Doyle, K.R. Woodward, R.H. Kardon, M. Wall; Variability in Objective and Subjective Perimetry: Comparison Between Humphrey Size III SITA and Accumap mfVEP . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2006;47(13):3995.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract
 
Purpose:
 

to compare retest variability between subjective – Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) and objective – AccuMap multifocal visual evoked potential perimetry (mfVEP).

 
Methods:
 

Eleven glaucoma patients agreed to be tested once a week for five consecutive weeks. Each visit included a subjective visual field threshold test using the SITA standard size III with HFA, and an objective visual field test (mfVEP). Coefficients of variation (CV) were calculated and the methods were compared using a t–test.

 
Results:
 

There was a significant difference in variability between HFA and AccuMap mfVEP (p<.002), with SITA (Mean=.159, SD=.150) showing 2.6% more variability in CV than mfVEP (Mean=.133, SD=.061). Coefficient of variation was plotted against mean sensitivity to compare variability over each test’s measurement range (Figure).  

 
Conclusions:
 

The mfVEP is slightly less variable than HFA perimetry in repeated testing and remains relatively constant across most of its range. The 2.6% difference in CV is not likely clinically significant.

 
Keywords: visual fields • 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.

×