Purchase this article with an account.
P.T. P. Pierre Filho, R.B. Schimiti, J.P. Vasconcellos, V.P. Costa; Sensitivity and Specificity of Frequency Doubling Technology, Tendency Oriented Perimetry, SITA Standard, and SITA Fast in Patients Undergoing Automated Perimetry for the First Time . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2005;46(13):3723.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
Purpose: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of Frequency Doubling Technology (FDT), Tendency Oriented Perimetry (TOP), SITA Standard (SS), and SITA Fast (SF) in the diagnosis of glaucoma in perimetric inexperienced individuals. Methods: One eye of 64 glaucoma patients and 53 normal subjects who had never undergone automated perimetry were tested with programs C–20–5 (FDT), G1 (TOP), and 24–2 (SS and SF). The gold standard for glaucoma was the presence of a typical glaucomatous optic disc appearance on stereoscopic examination, which was judged by a glaucoma expert. The test order among strategies was randomized for each subject. To define abnormal visual field, we applied 3 predetermined criteria for SS and SF, and 2 criteria for TOP and FDT. Test duration times were compared using ANOVA. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy for each test were compared. Results: The screening mode of FDT (C–20–5) showed the shortest mean test duration, followed by TOP, SF, and SS (P<0.05). Sensitivies ranged from 87.5 to 89.1% for SS, 92.2 to 93.8% for SF, 87.5 to 89.1% for TOP, and 82.8 to 85.9% for FDT. Specificities ranged from 66.4 to 71.7% for SS, 60.4 to 69.8% for SF, 56.6 to 62.3% for TOP, and 73.6 to 83.0% for FDT. There were no statistically significant differences in sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy among the tested methods (P>0.05). Conclusions: When testing individulas with no perimetric experience, a situation typically observed during population screening, moderate sensitivities and low specificities are expected for the diagnosis of glaucoma, regardless of the technology chosen.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only