Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Visual Field Tests”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed2001

Comparison of contrast sensitivity, visual acuity, and Humphrey visual field testing in patients with glaucoma.

PURPOSE: To investigate the relationship between large-letter contrast sensitivity, high-contrast visual acuity, and visual field defects in patients with glaucoma. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of glaucoma, glaucoma suspect, or ocular hypertension whose visual acuity was 20/40 (logMAR = 0.3) on better were included in the study. Visual acuity was measured using the Lighthouse visual acuity charts. Contrast sensitivity was measured using the Pell-Robson (PR) chart. The mean depression (MD) score from the most recent Humphrey visual field was used to quantify the visual field defect. RESULTS: A total of 120 eyes were studied. The PR contrast sensitivity score correlated more strongly with the MD of the visual field (r = .589, P < .001) than did the logMAR visual acuity (r = .193, P = .035). When just the eyes with open-angle glaucoma were considered (N = 54), the correlation was even greater for the PR score (r = .638). In ocular hypertensive eyes (N = 25), the correlations to PR and logMAR were not that different (r = .394 for PR, r = .303 for logMAR). Pseudophakic eyes did not show as strong a correlation (r = .335) as did phakic eyes (r = .591). CONCLUSION: For glaucomatous eyes with visual acuity of 20/40 or better, a decrease in the contrast sensitivity correlates with increased visual field loss. We speculate that this decrease in contrast sensitivity in glaucoma patients may account for their complaints of poor vision despite normal or near normal visual acuity.

Contrast Sensitivity↗
PubMed2003

Effect of a patient training video on visual field test reliability.

AIMS: To evaluate the effect of a visual field test educational video on the reliability of the first automated visual field test of new patients. METHODS: A prospective, randomised, controlled trial of an educational video on visual field test reliability of patients referred to the hospital eye service for suspected glaucoma was undertaken. Patients were randomised to either watch an educational video or a control group with no video. The video group was shown a 4.5 minute audiovisual presentation to familiarize them with the various aspects of visual field examination with particular emphasis on sources of unreliability. Reliability was determined using standard criteria of fixation loss rate less than 20%, false positive responses less than 33%, and false negative responses less than 33%. RESULTS: 244 patients were recruited; 112 in the video group and 132 in the control group with no significant between group difference in age, sex, and density of field defects. A significant improvement in reliability (p=0.015) was observed in the group exposed to the video with 85 (75.9%) patients having reliable results compared to 81 (61.4%) in the control group. The difference was not significant for the right (first tested) eye with 93 (83.0%) of the visual fields reliable in the video group compared to 106 (80.0%) in the control group (p = 0.583), but was significant for the left (second tested) eye with 97 (86.6 %) of the video group reliable versus 97 (73.5%) of the control group (p = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a brief, audiovisual patient information guide on taking the visual field test produced an improvement in patient reliability for individuals tested for the first time. In this trial the use of the video had most of its impact by reducing the number of unreliable fields from the second tested eye.

Aged↗
PubMed2003

Measurement error of visual field tests in glaucoma.

AIM: Psychophysical strategies designed for clinical visual field testing produce rapid estimates of threshold with relatively few stimulus presentations and so represent a trade-off between test quality and efficiency. The aim of this study was to determine the measurement error of a staircase algorithm similar to full threshold with standard automated perimetry (SAP) and frequency doubling perimetry (FDP) in glaucoma patients. METHODS: Seven patients with early open angle glaucoma (OAG) were prospectively recruited. All were experienced in laboratory based psychophysics. Three matched test locations were examined with SAP (externally driven Humphrey field analyser) and FDP (CRT) in a single arbitrarily selected eye of each subject. Each location was tested twice with a 4-2-2 dB staircase strategy, similar to full threshold, and then with the method of constant stimuli (MOCS). Accuracy (threshold estimation error) was quantified by determination of differences between "true" threshold measurements made by MOCS and single staircase threshold estimates. Precision (repeatability) was quantified by the differences between repeated staircase threshold estimates. RESULTS: Precision was relatively high for both tests, although higher for FDP than SAP at depressed sensitivity levels. The staircase strategy significantly underestimated threshold sensitivity for both test types, with the mean difference (95% CI) between staircase and MOCS thresholds being 4.48 dB (2.35 to 7.32) and 1.35 dB (0.56 to 1.73) for SAP and FDP respectively. Agreement levels (weighted kappa) between MOCS and staircase thresholds were found to be 0.48 for SAP and 0.85 for FDP. Although this "bias" appeared constant for FDP across all sensitivity levels, this was not the case for SAP where accuracy decreased at lower sensitivity levels. CONCLUSION: Estimations of threshold sensitivity made using staircase strategies common to clinical visual field test instrumentation are associated with varying degrees of measurement error according to visual field test type and sensitivity. In particular, SAP significantly overestimates the "true" level of sensitivity, particularly in damaged areas of the visual field, suggesting that clinical data of this type should be interpreted with caution.

Aged↗
PubMed2006

Visual field testing with the new Humphrey Matrix: a comparison between the FDT N-30 and Matrix N-30-F tests.

PURPOSE: To determine if the N-30-F test with the new Humphrey Matrix instrument is comparable to the traditional frequency-doubling technology (FDT) N-30 test. METHODS: A sample of 47 eyes from 47 patients (five normal subjects, 27 with ocular hypertension and 15 with glaucoma) underwent visual field (VF) testing with standard automated perimetry, and with FDT, using the FDT N-30 program, and the Matrix N-30-F program (using the same 19 tested points, full-threshold strategy, but with an enhanced algorithm to reduce testing time). The plots, mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), defect locations and test time were compared. RESULTS: The agreement between the two tests was shown to be good, except for subjects with large VF defects, in which greater PSD values were observed with the FDT test, whereas the Matrix test gave a higher MD and number of abnormal test locations in the total deviation plot. A lack of agreement was also found for the number of abnormal test locations on the pattern deviation plot at any VF loss severity level. The test time for the Matrix test was significantly shorter. CONCLUSION: The FDT N-30 and Matrix N-30-F tests proved to be comparable in cases of early to moderate VF defects.

Adult↗
PubMed1992

Visual field testing in the management of cytomegalovirus retinitis.

BACKGROUND: Sequential visual field testing is an extremely helpful adjunct to ophthalmoscopy and fundus photography in the management of cytomegalovirus (CMV) retinitis with the antiviral agents ganciclovir or foscarnet in patients with the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). The authors studied the visual field defects found in a series of 110 patients with AIDS and CMV retinitis. METHODS: Ophthalmoscopy and fundus photography were performed on all patients. Visual field analysis was performed with either tangent screen, Goldmann kinetic, or Humphrey automated static perimetry. RESULTS: Of 166 eyes in 110 patients with CMV retinitis, visual field defects were present initially in 92 (55%) eyes of 78 (70%) patients, and ultimately in 97 (53%) eyes of 90 patients in whom follow-up was available. Stabilization of visual field defects was indicative of controlled retinitis. CONCLUSION: Sequential visual field testing will confirm ophthalmoscopic evidence of successful antiviral treatment of CMV retinitis and will corroborate very early progression of previously controlled retinitis.

AIDS-Related Opportunistic Infections↗
PubMed1997

Analysis of reliability indices from Humphrey visual field tests in an urban glaucoma population.

PURPOSE: Visual field assessment is extremely important in glaucoma management, but interpretation is affected by the quality of the patient's performance. The authors have investigated the reliability of visual field performance by a randomly selected sample of the chronic glaucoma population at an urban tertiary care practice. METHODS: Patient reliability in Humphrey automated visual field testing was studied in 106 randomly selected chronic open-angle glaucoma patient charts, which provided 768 tests (mean, 7.2 +/- 4.8 fields; range, 2-18 fields). Reliability criteria were established as less than 20% fixation losses, less than 33% false-negative error, and less than 33% false-positive error, as recommended by Humphrey Instruments, Inc (San Leandro, CA). RESULTS: Patients performed reliably in 61% of right eye fields, 58% of left eye fields, and 59.5% overall. Of the 106 patients, only 35 (33%) were always reliable in both eyes, whereas 8 (7.5%) were always unreliable in both eyes. The most common cause of unreliability was fixation loss (39%), whereas false-positive error (5%) and false-negative error (9%) were less frequent. A more severely depressed mean deviation correlated significantly with poorer performance on the three reliability indices, with false-negative error having the greatest correlation, followed by fixation loss and false-positive error. Corrected pattern standard deviation correlated closely only with false-negative error. Prolonged test time also correlated with all three reliability indices. Age was a significant factor for fixation loss but not for false-negative or false-positive error. CONCLUSIONS: The authors conclude that fewer than two thirds of the Humphrey visual fields were reliable with the authors' urban tertiary care population of patients with glaucoma. Relaxing the fixation loss criterion to less than 33% improved the rate of reliability to approximately 75%. The severity of glaucomatous visual field defects, test time, and age were identified as factors influencing the reliability of the Humphrey visual fields.

Aged↗
PubMed2002

Performance of glaucoma mass screening with only a visual field test using frequency-doubling technology perimetry.

PURPOSE: To report the performance of glaucoma mass screening with only a visual field test utilizing frequency- doubling technology (FDT) perimetry in general populations. DESIGN: Hospital and population-based cross-sectional study. METHODS: This study took place in a multicenter setting. One hundred three consecutive glaucomatous patients and 14,814 persons were randomly selected. We had created a glaucoma screening protocol (GSP) using FDT perimetry (FDT-GSP). Frequency-doubling technology-glaucoma screening protocol was tested on consecutive glaucoma patients diagnosed with Humphrey visual field analyzer (30-2 SITA standard), and then FDT-GSP was applied to general populations. Frequency-doubling technology-glaucoma screening protocol positive subjects were ophthalmologically diagnosed. Detection ability of FDT-GSP was determined in consecutive patients, and the positive predictive value (PPV) of FDT-GSP to detect definitive glaucoma was estimated in general populations. RESULTS: Frequency-doubling technique-glaucoma screening protocol detected 83.3% and 100% of definitive glaucoma patients with an early (mean deviation [MD] > -6 dB) and more advanced stage (MD < or = -6 dB), respectively. In the population-based screening, there were 660 (4.5%) subjects who had positive FDT-GSP, including 512 in whom no visual field abnormalities (VFA) had been pointed out previously. Of them, 370 subjects underwent ophthalmologic diagnosis. Then, 266 (71.9%, 266/370) subjects had a glaucomatous disk and 167 had definitive glaucomatous VFA. Fifty-five (14.9%) and 39 (10.5%) subjects were diagnosed as having other diseases and as normal, respectively. The PPV of FDT-GSP ranged from 32.6% (167/512)-45.1% (167/370). CONCLUSIONS: Frequency-doubling technology-based screening with only a visual field test showed reasonable performance on mass screening for detection of definitive glaucoma in this study population, considering the glaucoma prevalence.

Aged↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Visual field testing: pearls and pitfalls.

1. Three major items are needed for a visual field test to take place: a perimetrist, a patient, and a request for a certain type of test. All of these are subject to knowledge of certain information and the ability to perform certain tasks. 2. The purpose of visual field testing is to provide information that will assist in diagnosing ocular diseases, evaluating neurologic diseases, and monitoring progression in ocular diseases. 3. The assessment of the patient's visual field is vital to his or her complete ocular examination. This diagnostic tool is very important and needs to be administered with professional technique and responsibility.

Eye Diseases↗
PubMed2000

Sensitivity of Swedish interactive threshold algorithm compared with standard full threshold algorithm in Humphrey visual field testing.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the sensitivity of Swedish interactive threshold algorithm (SITA) strategies with the standard full threshold algorithm in the Humphrey Field Analyzer. DESIGN: Observational case series. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-eight glaucoma patients who were experienced in automated perimetry. TESTING: Central field testing was performed with the 30-2 program using standard full threshold (SFT), SITA standard (SS), and SITA fast (SF) strategies. All three tests were carried out on each of four different days in a span of 4 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity, repeatability, time saved, and the extent of defect in the SITA strategies were compared with those of the SFT. RESULTS: The sensitivity of SS and SF were 95.12% and 92.68%, respectively. The time saved in SS and SF was 53.12+/-9.51% and 70.69+/-8.81%, respectively. The repeatability as assessed by intraclass correlation showed excellent repeatability for the SFT and SS strategies and excellent to poor repeatability with the SF strategy. With increasing mean deviation, the defects (significant at P<0.5%) in the pattern deviation plots tended to be more in the SITA strategies as compared with SFT. CONCLUSIONS: Swedish interactive threshold algorithm strategies have good sensitivity and are significantly faster as compared with the standard threshold algorithm. The repeatability of the SFT and SS strategies are excellent, whereas that of the SF strategy is variable.

Algorithms↗
PubMed1991

The accuracy of confrontation visual field test in comparison with automated perimetry.

The accuracy of confrontation visual field testing was determined for 512 visual fields using automated static perimetry as the reference standard. The sensitivity of confrontation testing excluding patchy defects was 40% for detecting anterior visual field defects, 68.3% for posterior defects, and 50% for both anterior and posterior visual field defects combined. The sensitivity within each group varied depending on the type of visual field defect encountered. Confrontation testing had a high sensitivity (75% to 100%) for detecting altitudinal visual loss, central/centrocecal scotoma, and homonymous hemianopsia. Confrontation testing was fairly insensitive (20% to 50% sensitivity) for detecting arcuate scotoma and bitemporal hemianopsia. The specificity of confrontation testing was high at 93.4%. The high positive predictive value (72.6%) and negative predictive value (75.7%) would indicate that visual field defects identified during confrontation testing are often true visual field defects. However, the many limitations of confrontation testing should be remembered, particularly its low sensitivity for detecting visual field loss associated with parasellar tumors, glaucoma, and compressive optic neuropathies.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1989

Full threshold versus quantification of defects for visual field testing in glaucoma.

Nineteen glaucoma patients, 17 ocular hypertensives, and 16 normal subjects underwent visual field testing on the Humphrey Field Analyzer using two programs: full threshold (thresholding of all test points with double-crossing technique) and quantification of defects (thresholding only points that deviated more than 6 dB from a presumed normal retinal contour). The purpose of the study was to compare the diagnostic value of information gained by the latter, less time-consuming test with that of the full threshold procedure. The average time requirement per eye was 13 min 11 s for full thresholding and 4 min 22 s for quantification of defects. Of the 104 sets of fields, the diagnosis was at variance in 18. The differences were most often due to shallow defects in otherwise normal fields or shallow defects surrounding deeper scotomas that had been detected by both programs. The shallow defects placed the fields in more advanced diagnostic categories and were all detected with the full threshold technique.

Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted↗
PubMed1989

Contrast sensitivity versus static visual field testing during experimental elevation of intraocular pressure.

Contrast sensitivity testing has been recommended as a more sensitive indicator of early visual loss than visual field testing. Using gravity inversion to induce an intraocular pressure rise, we performed contrast sensitivity testing on each eye of 10 normal subjects in the upright and inverted positions. Contrast sensitivity results were not altered in the head-down position, even though in 5 of the 10 subjects (7 of 20 eyes), visual field alterations on static perimetry were elicited during inversion. In both of these evaluations, the subject's results in the upright position served as the control, freeing us from reliance upon age-matched populations. We conclude that precise measurement of static thresholds with automated perimetry is more sensitive than routine contrast sensitivity testing in detecting visual dysfunction related to transient acute elevations of intraocular pressure.

Adult↗
PubMed1989

Assessing the utility of reliability indices for automated visual fields. Testing ocular hypertensives.

Monocular (right eye) visual fields were recorded with the Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer (30-2 Program) at baseline as well as 6 and 12 months later in 120 patients with established ocular hypertension. Indices of field reliability (fixation loss, less than 20%; false-positives and false-negatives, less than 33%) and field sensitivity (mean deviation [MD] and pattern standard deviation [PSD]) were examined. At baseline, 35% of patients exhibited low reliability (LR) fields, a figure which decreased to approximately 25% at 6 and 12 months, respectively. During this period, over 50% of patients produced at least one LR field, whereas 8.3% were unable to produce even one reliable field. Exhibition of a LR field appeared to be independent of patient age. Fixation errors, the major cause of LR fields, decreased by approximately 10% over the 12-month period; most patients had between 20 and 32% fixation errors. The incidence of significant defects identified by PSD was greater than that for MD; this was true for both reliable and LR fields. It is suggested that increasing the fixation loss criteria for assessing patient reliability to a 33% cutoff might substantially increase the percentage of fields graded reliable with minimal effect on the sensitivity or specificity of the test.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Overcoming the language barrier in visual field testing.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of using recorded instructions in patients' native language compared with interpreter-assisted instructions on the reliability and duration of the visual field test. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty patients referred for visual field testing were included in the study. Thirty-five had limited or no knowledge of the Hebrew language, and 25 control patients were fluent in Hebrew, the native language. None had previous experience with automated perimetry. Patients were randomized to receive recorded instructions on the visual field test in their native language or translator-assisted instructions by the technician before performing the test. For each patient, the time required for instructions and test performance and the reliability indices were documented. RESULTS: The method of instruction (recorded or interpreter-assisted) did not affect the time required for patient instructions (66 +/- 24 seconds and 57 +/- 30 seconds, respectively), the time for test performance (7.2 +/- 1.5 minutes and 7.8 +/- 1.8 minutes, respectively), and test reliability as measured by the rate of fixation losses. Regardless of the method of explanation, the time required for instructions and for performing the test were significantly shorter for Hebrew speakers than for non-Hebrew speakers. CONCLUSION: The use of a recorded explanation in the patient's native language before visual field testing is an applicable method for patient instruction. Clinics in areas with multilingual populations may use this method to save technicians time, without adversely affecting the time required for performing the test and its reliability.

Aged↗
PubMed2001

An explicit no response instead of time-out in automated visual-field testing.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the effect of response-acquisition technique on psychometric performance in visual-field testing, the conventional one-button yes/time-out method was compared with a two-button yes/no method for responding whether or not the stimulus was detected. There are a number of situations in which the single-button technique leads to ambiguous results. In this study, we thus expected the yes/no method to reduce tendencies towards habituation and automatic responding. Our hypothesis was that the two-button technique could reduce the rate of erroneous responses. METHODS: Luminance-difference sensitivity for bright stimuli (32') on a photopic background was evaluated at 26 locations within the central visual field (30 degrees) using a specially equalised video display unit and a modified 4/2-dB staircase strategy (six reversals, maximum-likelihood threshold estimation). Sixty-one ophthalmologically normal subjects (aged 20-30 years) were examined twice with each method. RESULTS: Mean sensitivities with the two-button yes/no method were found to be, on average, 0.13 dB above those measured with the one-button yes/time-out technique--a difference without clinical relevance. Within-subject variability did not differ between the two methods. However, the less intuitive two-button yes/no method had a slightly higher number of false responses in catch trials. CONCLUSION: Compared to the conventional one-button yes/time-out method, the two-button yes/no method in normal young subjects thus showed little difference in mean sensitivities and equivalent within-subject variabilities. Concerning our initial hypothesis, the yes/no method is of somewhat higher complexity and is not able to reduce the rate of erroneous responses. The one-button yes/time-out method fared a little better in error rate. In summary, the yes/no method is an alternative and additional possibility of response acquisition in visual-field testing, which is worthy of being tested in a clinical study with elderly subjects.

Adult↗
PubMed1994

Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study. 2. Visual field test scoring and reliability.

BACKGROUND: The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS) is a multicenter, randomized clinical trial designed (1) to determine the better of two surgical management strategies for glaucoma when medical treatment alone no longer adequately controls the disease and (2) to clarify the clinical course and prognosis of open-angle glaucoma after surgical interventions have begun. The investigators of this study have developed quantitative methods to assess the test reliability and measure the severity of glaucomatous visual field defects with the 24-2 threshold program of the Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer. This report details these methods and presents information about long-term fluctuation during a time interval short enough to render change due to disease unlikely. METHODS: In AGIS, reliability assessment of automated visual field tests is based on the number of questions asked; percent of fixation losses, false-positive responses, and false-negative responses; and amount of short-term fluctuation. The AGIS visual field defect score is based on the number and depth of clusters of adjacent depressed test sites in the upper and lower hemifields and in the nasal area of the total deviation printout of the threshold program single-field test STATPAC-2 analysis. The score ranges from 0 (no defect) to 20 (all test sites deeply depressed). The fluctuation in score between two tests obtained during an interval preceding AGIS surgical interventions, ranging from 1 day to 6 weeks on 756 eyes of 562 patients, is analyzed. RESULTS: The scores of the first visual field tests, which determined eligibility for the study, range from 1 to 17. Large positive or negative interest fluctuations (absolute changes of 4 or more) occurred in the second tests for 16% of eyes; more scores improved (11%) than worsened (5%). The frequency of large fluctuations tended to increase as the time interval between tests increased. Absolute interest fluctuations were independent of age. CONCLUSION: For visual field tests obtained with the automated perimeter, AGIS investigators have developed objective, quantitative methods of scoring test reliability and severity of glaucomatous field loss. For 16% of eyes, long-term fluctuations were large enough (> or = 4 points) to suggest improvement or worsening of the glaucomatous defect even though the interval in which the fluctuations occurred was short enough (median time, approximately 1 week) to render changes in disease status unlikely.

Adult↗