Purchase this article with an account.
L.T. Tong, M. Ying–Lai, B. Francis, R. Varma, LALES Group; Association Between Frequency Doubling Perimetry (FDP) and Standard Automated Perimetry: The Los Angeles Latino Eye Study (LALES) . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2005;46(13):4661.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
Purpose: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of frequency doubling perimetry (FDP) in detecting glaucomatous visual field loss on standard automated perimetry in a population–based study. Methods: The Los Angeles Latino Eye Study is a population–based study of visual impairment and eye disease in adult Latinos in Los Angeles, CA. Each participant in the study underwent a complete eye examination including measurement of visual acuity, intraocular pressure, stereoscopic optic disc photographs, and functional testing with the FDP (screening mode 20–1) and Humphrey visual field (SITA standard 24–2). The severity of the FDP defects were classified as the following: "none" when no defects were seen on testing; "mild" when 1 or 2 mild defects but no moderate or severe defects were present; "moderate" when 3 or more mild defects, or 1 or 2 moderate defects but no severe defects were present; "severe" when 4 mild defects, 3 or more moderate defects, or any severe defect was present. Glaucomatous visual field loss on the SITA standard was determined by a consensus of 3 fellowship–trained glaucoma specialists. The sensitivity and specificity, of each severity level of FDP defect, for detecting glaucomatous visual field loss was determined. Results: 11,651 eyes of 5856 individuals was included in this analysis. In this sample, 9033 eyes were classified as "none," 688 eyes as "mild," 709 eyes as "moderate," and 1221 eyes as "severe" on the FDP severity classification. The sensitivities and specificities for mild, moderate, and severe levels of FDP defects for detecting glaucomatous visual field loss on the SITA standard were 13.2%, 19.2%, 37.9%, and 93.5%, 93.9%, 91.5%, respectively. Conclusions: In our sample, using the above described severity classification, the FDP was highly specific for detecting glaucomatous visual field loss. However, the sensitivity for detecting visual field loss was poor. The screening mode of the FDP, using this classification, is not ideal for identifying glaucomatous visual field loss in population–based screenings.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only