June 2020
Volume 61, Issue 7
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2020
Evaluating perimetric techniques in the elderly
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Giorgia Demaria
    Ophthalmology, UMCG, Groningen, Netherlands
  • Alessandro Grillini
    Ophthalmology, UMCG, Groningen, Netherlands
  • Nomdo M Jansonius
    Ophthalmology, UMCG, Groningen, Netherlands
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Giorgia Demaria, None; Alessandro Grillini, EP19209204.7 (P), REPERIO B.V. (I); Nomdo Jansonius, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  MSC GA No 675033
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2020, Vol.61, 3883. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Giorgia Demaria, Alessandro Grillini, Nomdo M Jansonius; Evaluating perimetric techniques in the elderly. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2020;61(7):3883.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Purpose : To determine the most suitable technique for the assessment of the visual field in the elderly.

Methods : Cross-sectional study with 25 glaucoma patients and 24 age-similar controls. Participants had to be 70+ and with MOntreal Cognitive Assessment 24/30 or better. Tests were divided in motor (requiring pushing a button; Humphrey Field Analyzer [HFA], Ocusweep Visual Field Threshold [VFT], Ocusweep Reaction Time [RT], Frequency Doubling Technology [FDT], DAMATO Multifixation Campimetry Online) and non-motor (using eye-tracking; Eye Movement Campimetry [EMC] and EyeCatcher). There were three outcome measures: (1) success rate (ability to complete the test), (2) a continuous visual field measure specific to each test, and (3) user friendliness, which was based on three questionnaire-based parameters (practicability, comprehensibility, and tiresomeness; scale 0[bad]-10[good]). We used a Mann-Whitney test to assess the ability to discriminate between glaucoma and healthy for tests with success rate above> 80%; user friendliness was compared between devices using a Friedman (motor) and Wilcoxon (non-motor) test.

Results : Median age was 76 in patients and 74 in controls (P=0.11). RT and EyeCatcher had a success rate below 80%. All remaining devices were able to discriminate between cases and controls (P<0.001). For the motor tests, there was a statistically significant difference in practicability (P<0.001; FDT best [median score 9], HFA worst [7]) and tiresomeness (P<0.001; FDT best [9], HFA worst [6]) but not in comprehensibility (P=0.15). For the non-motor tests, there was a statistically significant difference in practicability (P=0.010; EMC best [9]) but not in comprehensibility (P=0.32) or tiresomeness (P=0.35).

Conclusions : Success rates of RT and EyeCatcher were too low to be clinically useful. All remaining tests could discriminate between glaucoma and healthy. FDT was most user friendly.

This is a 2020 ARVO Annual Meeting abstract.


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.