July 2019
Volume 60, Issue 9
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   July 2019
Can an LCD screen be a viable alternative to a projection bowl for clinical perimetry?
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Bledi Petriti
    National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, United Kingdom
  • Marco A. Miranda
    National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, United Kingdom
  • Haogang Zhu
    National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, United Kingdom
    Division of Optometry and Visual Sciences, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom
  • Pádraig J Mulholland
    National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, United Kingdom
    Optometry and Vision Science Research Group, Ulster University, Coleraine, United Kingdom
  • David Crabb
    Division of Optometry and Visual Sciences, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom
  • Carol Bronze
    National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, United Kingdom
  • Roger Anderson
    Optometry and Vision Science Research Group, Ulster University, Coleraine, United Kingdom
  • David F Garway-Heath
    National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, United Kingdom
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Bledi Petriti, None; Marco Miranda, T4 (P); Haogang Zhu, T4 (P); Pádraig Mulholland, Heidelberg Engineering (R); David Crabb, Allergan (R), ANSWERS (P), CenterVue (C), Roche (F), Santer (R), T4 (P); Carol Bronze, None; Roger Anderson, None; David Garway-Heath, Answers (P), CenterVue (C), Moorfields MDT (P), T4 (P)
  • Footnotes
    Support  NIHR innovation for invention i41 NIHR Reference Number: II-LA-0813-20004
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science July 2019, Vol.60, 2487. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Bledi Petriti, Marco A. Miranda, Haogang Zhu, Pádraig J Mulholland, David Crabb, Carol Bronze, Roger Anderson, David F Garway-Heath; Can an LCD screen be a viable alternative to a projection bowl for clinical perimetry?. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2019;60(9):2487.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : To assess the agreement between threshold sensitivities obtained from an LCD screen and a standard bowl perimeter

Methods : Achromatic contrast thresholds were measured using the method of constant stimuli (MOCS) at two visual field locations on a standard bowl perimeter (Octopus 900, Haag-Streit, UK, stimuli generated using R v3.2.2 and the Open Perimetry Interface v2.1) and a gamma-corrected 21.3” monochromatic LCD monitor (EIZO Radiforce GS521, refresh rate 51 Hz, stimuli generated using MATLAB [The Mathworks Inc, USA] and Psychtoolbox v.3.0) in 52 healthy and glaucomatous participants (MD range -11.60dB to +1.50dB). Goldmann III (SAP) stimulus contrast was varied at two locations of the VF: one central, one peripheral. Method of constant stimuli (MOCS) frequency-of-seeing (FOS) and a maximum likelihood method established threshold sensitivity (intensity seen 50% of the time). Mean difference between platforms and 95% limits of agreement (LoA) were calculated using Bland-Altman analysis and compared with test and retest differences for each platform and the 95% coefficient of repeatability (CoR). A threshold was generated from the first- and second-half of the data collected; test retest differences were calculated from the threshold estimates from each half.

Results : Threshold sensitivities were higher on the LCD monitor (mean difference 2.48 ± 3.40dB) with 95% LoA range being 13.50dB (Fig. 1). The 95% CoR was 17.42dB and 17.55dB on the LCD and bowl respectively. Throughout the sensitivity range (≥12dB), the difference between platforms was well represented (R2=0.81; p<0.001) by the orthogonal least-squares equation: 0.69xthLCD - 0.72xthbowl + 0.07xdist - 2.54=0; where, th=threshold and dist=vectorised distance from the point being tested to fixation. When queried, 12% of the patients reported to prefer the bowl surface, 21% had no preference, and 67% preferred to be tested on the LCD screen

Conclusions : Threshold measures captured using a bowl perimeter and LCD monitor while systematically different, can be equated following post-hoc adjustment. The wide limits of agreement observed between LCD and bowl perimetry was also explained by the poor repeatability for each platform independently

This abstract was presented at the 2019 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Vancouver, Canada, April 28 - May 2, 2019.

 

Figure 1. Bland-Altman analysis of the agreement between contrast thresholds measured using the LCD screen and the bowl surface

Figure 1. Bland-Altman analysis of the agreement between contrast thresholds measured using the LCD screen and the bowl surface

×
×

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.

×