July 2018
Volume 59, Issue 9
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   July 2018
A comparison of relative diagnostic precision between the Compass fundus perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Luca Mario Rossetti
    Eye Clinic, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
  • Giovanni Montesano
    Eye Clinic, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
    Optometry and Visual Sciences, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom
  • Susan R Bryan
    Optometry and Visual Sciences, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom
  • Paolo Fogagnolo
    Eye Clinic, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
  • Francesco Oddone
    Glaucoma unit, IRCCS GB Bietti Eye Foundation, Rome, Italy
  • Allison M McKendrick
    Optometry & Vision Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  • Andrew Turpin
    Computing and Information Systems, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  • Paolo Lanzetta
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Udine, Udine, Italy
  • Andrea Perdicchi
    Azienda ospedaliera Sant'Andrea, Rome, Italy
  • Chris A Johnson
    Ophthal & Visual Sci, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, United States
  • David F Garway-Heath
    Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom
  • David P Crabb
    Optometry and Visual Sciences, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Luca Rossetti, CenterVue (C); Giovanni Montesano, None; Susan Bryan, None; Paolo Fogagnolo, CenterVue (C); Francesco Oddone, CenterVue (C); Allison McKendrick, CenterVue (C); Andrew Turpin, CenterVue (C); Paolo Lanzetta, CenterVue (C); Andrea Perdicchi, None; Chris Johnson, CenterVue (C); David Garway-Heath, ANSWERS (P), CenterVue (C), Moorfields MDT (P), T4 (P); David Crabb, Allergan (R), ANSWERS (P), CenterVue (C), Roche (F), Santen (R), T4 (P)
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science July 2018, Vol.59, 6033. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Luca Mario Rossetti, Giovanni Montesano, Susan R Bryan, Paolo Fogagnolo, Francesco Oddone, Allison M McKendrick, Andrew Turpin, Paolo Lanzetta, Andrea Perdicchi, Chris A Johnson, David F Garway-Heath, David P Crabb; A comparison of relative diagnostic precision between the Compass fundus perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2018;59(9):6033.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : To evaluate relative diagnostic precision of two devices, the Compass (CMP, CenterVue, Italy) fundus perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA, Zeiss, Dublin), in detecting glaucomatous optic neuropathy (GON) in a large multicentre cross-sectional study, .

Methods : One eye of 498 glaucoma patients and 436 age similar normals was tested with the index tests: HFA (SITA Standard strategy) and CMP (ZEST strategy) with a 24-2 grid. The reference test for GON was specialist evaluation of fundus photographs or OCT, independent of the visual field. For both devices, linear regression was used to calculate the sensitivity decrease with age in the normal group to compute pointwise Total Deviation (TD) values and Mean Deviation (MD). We derived 5% and 1% pointwise age corrected normative limits.
MD and the total number of TD values below the 5% (TD 5%) or the 1% (TD 1%) limit per field were used as classifiers. We used partial ROC curves and partial Area Under the Curve (pAUC) to compare the diagnostic precision of the devices.
Additionally, 44 glaucoma and 54 normal subjects were tested twice on both instruments. Pointwise Mean Absolute Deviation (MAD) and Bland Altman plots for the mean sensitivity (MS) were computed.
Results are reported as mean difference ± standard error.

Results : Both devices showed similar discriminative power (Figure 1). Differences between pAUC were negligible (for MD 0.019, p = 0.03; for TD 5% 0.012, p = 0.023; for TD 1% (0.003, p-value = 0.54).
The 95% limits of agreement for the MS were reduced by 14% in CMP compared to HFA in glaucoma subjects, and by 49% in normal subjects (Figure 2). MAD was very similar, being slightly smaller (not signifincant) in CMP compared to HFA for glaucoma (0.03 ± 0.2 dB) and for normals (0.08 ± 0.16 dB).
Average MS was lower with CMP than with HFA, both for glaucoma (-1.45 ± 0.01 dB) and normal subjects (-1.82 ± 0.11 dB).

Conclusions : Relative diagnostic precision of the two devices are equivalent. Test-retest variability of mean sensitivity for CMP was better than HFA. Fundus perimetry might be a promising tool to monitor progression glaucoma patients.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2018 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Honolulu, Hawaii, April 29 - May 3, 2018.

 

Figure 1. pROC curves for MD, TD 5% and TD 1% for HFA (red) and CMP (blue). The shaded regions represent the 95% CIs.

Figure 1. pROC curves for MD, TD 5% and TD 1% for HFA (red) and CMP (blue). The shaded regions represent the 95% CIs.

 

Figure 2. Bland – Altman plots for HFA (in red) and CMP (in blue) with 95% limits of agreement (shaded region) and mean difference (solid line).

Figure 2. Bland – Altman plots for HFA (in red) and CMP (in blue) with 95% limits of agreement (shaded region) and mean difference (solid line).

×
×

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.

×