May 2003
Volume 44, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2003
Screening With Frequency Doubling Technology Perimetry in a Metropolitan Community
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • S.L. Mansberger
    Devers Eye Institute, Portland, OR, United States
  • C.A. Johnson
    Devers Eye Institute, Portland, OR, United States
  • W.A. Butler
    Devers Eye Institute, Portland, OR, United States
  • G.A. Cioffi
    Devers Eye Institute, Portland, OR, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  S.L. Mansberger, None; C.A. Johnson, Welch Allyn F, C; W.A. Butler, None; G.A. Cioffi, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  Collins Foundation
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2003, Vol.44, 3413. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      S.L. Mansberger, C.A. Johnson, W.A. Butler, G.A. Cioffi; Screening With Frequency Doubling Technology Perimetry in a Metropolitan Community . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2003;44(13):3413.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose: To report the results of visual field screening of a large, community-based study using Frequency Doubling Technology Perimetry (FDT). Methods: We used one of the FDT screening modes (C-20-5, C-20-1, N-30-5) or threshold modes (C-20 and N-30) for testing. We defined an abnormal result as one location of reduced sensitivity on the printout. We divided the screenings by location to determine access, age characteristics, and likelihood to have an abnormal FDT result. The categories for locations were health care clinics, work sites, senior centers, festivals/fairs, and foodbanks/shelters. Results: Over three years, we screened 9459 participants from 225 locations in Oregon and Washington. The age of the participants (mean +/- SD) was 53.4 +/- 17.2 years (range 10-99). On initial FDT testing, the right and left eye had abnormal results in 19% (1813/9459) and 22% (2104/9459) of participants. Of those with abnormal results, 38% (370/961) and 37% (442/1187) of right and left eyes, respectively had normal results on repeat testing. We found an abnormal, reliable result on initial and repeat testing in 5.4% (511/9459) and 5.9% (560/9459) of right and left eyes, respectively. When compared to other locations, community festivals recruited the largest numbers of participants per event. Senior center screenings recruited older participants (p<0.001) that were more likely to have abnormal results(p<0.05). Conclusions: An investigator should repeat an abnormal result to decrease the number of false positive test results with FDT in community screenings. To attract older adults more likely to have abnormal results, we recommend targeting retirement centers. To increase access for the greatest numbers of participants, we recommend targeting large community fairs. We need comprehensive research in community eye screening to determine the etiology of these abnormalities.

Keywords: visual fields • clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: sys 
×
×

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.

×