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 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1998

An AI approach to dynamic visual field testing.

Visual field test results are crucial to the accuracy and efficiency of diagnosing blinding diseases such as glaucoma. Herein, a method of integrating self-organizing neural networks and empirical heuristics is used to perform visual field tests via a dynamic test strategy, which can lead to a reduction in the number of trials in a perimetric test. Experiments performed using clinical test records show that we are able to reduce by 20% to 30% the number of trials per test without much adverse effect on the accuracy of the tests.

Algorithms↗
PubMed1998

Glaucoma screening by optometrists: positive predictive value of visual field testing.

PURPOSE: Visual field testing is increasingly being performed by optometrists in order to improve glaucoma detection. The aim of this study was to assess the positive predictive value (PPV) of visual field testing as currently practised by optometrists. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed of referrals for suspected glaucoma to an ophthalmology department during a 3 month period. The PPV for glaucoma was determined according to the reason for referral. RESULTS: There were 86 referrals for suspected glaucoma. Isolated field loss accounted for 12% of these referrals but no cases of glaucoma detection. These subjects were either false positive referrals or had field defects of nonglaucomatous aetiology (tilted optic disc and porencephalic cyst). The PPV for glaucoma among referrals with isolated field loss was significantly less than that among referrals with field loss in association with corroborative abnormalities (0 vs. 60%, p = 0.005). No such difference was found for referrals with raised intraocular pressure (43% vs. 57%, p = 0.38) or suspicious discs (25% vs. 53%, p = 0.60). CONCLUSIONS: Visual field testing is currently leading to unnecessary referrals to the hospital eye service with no detectable improvement in the accuracy of glaucoma suspect referrals. It is important that optometrists perform visual field testing in accordance with validated screening methodology.

Adult↗
PubMed1993

The four-meter confrontation visual field test.

Confrontation visual fields have limited value in testing paracentral vision. We have used a four-meter confrontation test for several years at the Mayo Clinic for screening of the central field. This test can identify paracentral scotomas and macular sparing in a homonymous hemianopia. The optics of this technique parallel those of the two-meter tangent screen examination in which a scotoma is greatly enlarged by doubling the test distance. Although in common usage by some neuro-ophthalmologists, this simple technique is useful as an office screening device for evaluating paracentral vision.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Normal visual field test results following glaucomatous visual field end points in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the occurrence of normal visual field (VF) test results following 2 vs 3 consecutive, abnormal, reliable test results in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. METHODS: The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study is a prospective, multicenter follow-up study as part of a longitudinal randomized clinical trial. Sixty-four (68 eyes) of 1636 participants developed a VF primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) end point. We compared the proportion of normal VF test results after a VF POAG end point among eyes whose VF abnormality was confirmed by 2 (n = 9 eyes) vs 3 (n = 59 eyes) consecutive, abnormal, reliable VF test results. RESULTS: The proportion of VF test results that were normal subsequent to a VF POAG end point in eyes whose abnormality was confirmed by 2 consecutive, abnormal, reliable test results was significantly higher (73 [66%] of 110) compared with eyes whose abnormality was confirmed by 3 consecutive, abnormal, reliable test results (46 [12%] of 381) (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: A VF POAG end point confirmed by 3 consecutive, abnormal, reliable VF test results appears to have greater specificity and stability than either 1 or 2 consecutive, abnormal, reliable VF test results. However, some eyes whose VF POAG end point was confirmed by 3 consecutive, abnormal, reliable test results nonetheless had 1 or more normal test results on follow-up.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Sensitivity and specificity of the 76-suprathreshold visual field test to detect eyes with visual field defect by Humphrey threshold testing in a population-based setting: the Thessaloniki eye study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the screening performance of the 76-Suprathreshold (76-STHR) visual field test to detect eyes with visual field defect (VFD) as measured by Humphrey threshold testing in a population-based setting. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: All 88 subjects who agreed to participate in the pilot phase of the Thessaloniki Eye Study were included. Participants underwent a 76-STHR visual field test followed by a 30-full threshold (30-2 FTHR) test (Humphrey field analyzer). One eye/subject was randomly selected and included in the analysis. Sensitivity and specificity rates of the 76-STHR to detect eyes with VFD by the 30 to 2 FTHR test were calculated. RESULTS: When eyes with borderline results in the 30 to 2 FTHR test were classified as having a VFD, sensitivity rates of the 76-STHR to detect eyes with VFD by the 30 to 2 FTHR were 85.2%, 77.8%, and 74.1%, whereas specificity rates were 70%, 78%, and 86%, depending on the cutoff used for the 76-STHR. CONCLUSIONS: The 76-STHR test showed high sensitivity and low false-negative results at the "at least one point missed" cutoff level criterion to detect eyes with visual field defect by Humphrey threshold testing in a population-based setting. This criterion should be used when screening in a population-based study setting. By contrast, the 76-STHR would not be the appropriate screening test in a primary care setting with limited resources.

Aged↗
PubMed1992

The four-meter confrontation visual field test.

The 4-m confrontation visual field test has been successfully used at the Mayo Clinic for many years in addition to the standard 0.5-m confrontation visual field test. The 4-m confrontation visual field test is a test of macular function and can identify small central or paracentral scotomas that the examiner may not find when the patient is tested only at 0.5 m. Also, macular sparing in homonymous hemianopias and quadrantanopias may be identified with the 4-m confrontation visual field test. We recommend use of this confrontation visual field test, in addition to the standard 0.5-m confrontation visual field test, on appropriately selected patients to obtain the most information possible by confrontation visual field tests.

Hemianopsia↗
PubMed1997

How often do patients need visual field tests?

BACKGROUND: This study was undertaken to determine whether the interval between visual field tests affects the ability to detect progressive glaucomatous field loss. METHODS: One hundred and nineteen retinal locations which were deteriorating significantly by > or = 1 dB/ year (untreated normal tension glaucoma patients: 6 eyes) were studied. Analysis was repeated using 'thinned' visual field tests: one test per year instead of the complete three per year over a period of 4 years. RESULTS: The 'thinned' tests identified only 45.4% of the deteriorating points over the 4-year period. Furthermore, there was a mean delay of 1.10 years in detection (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Less frequent visual field testing detects fewer progressing locations and detects them later.

Adult↗
PubMed1995

Confrontation visual field loss as a function of decibel sensitivity loss on automated static perimetry. Implications on the accuracy of confrontation visual field testing.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of confrontation visual field testing with regard to the density of the visual field defect and its location in the peripheral visual field. METHODS: A prospective comparison of confrontation visual field testing with full-threshold Humphrey automated static perimetry C24-2 or C30-2 was conducted at a university eye center over a 3-month period. Seventy-two patients with a variety of neurologic and ophthalmologic conditions underwent confrontation visual field testing and automated perimetry as a part of their evaluation. One visual field from each patient was analyzed for this study. RESULTS: Confrontation visual field testing yielded an overall sensitivity for detecting an abnormal visual field (full-field analysis) of 63%, when sensitivity of confrontation testing rested on the detection of just one abnormal quadrant. The sensitivity of confrontation testing varied depending on the type of visual field loss present: 51% for arcuate scotomas, 67% for visual field constriction, 78% for altitudinal scotomas, and 90% for hemianopias. The sensitivity of detecting abnormal visual field quadrants, rather than the full-field analysis, was, however, poor at 38%. The sensitivity of confrontation testing was lower for superior quadrant defects and higher for inferior quadrant defects. The estimated probability of detecting an abnormal visual field quadrant occurring at a -26-decibel sensitivity loss from age-matched healthy patients for superior quadrant defects and a -19-decibel sensitivity loss for inferior quadrant defects was 50%. The increased sensitivity noted for visual field defects and for inferior quadrant defects appears to be related, in part, to the density of the visual field loss present. CONCLUSION: Confrontation visual field testing is relatively insensitive unless a moderate to dense defect is present, and as such is a poor screening test. However, when visual field defects are identified with confrontation visual field testing, the defects often are real as per the high specificity (97%) and high positive predictive value (96%).

Adult↗
PubMed1985

A clinical comparison of visual field testing with a new automated perimeter, the Humphrey Field Analyzer, and the Goldmann perimeter.

Automated threshold static perimetry with the Humphrey field analyzer and kinetic and suprathreshold static perimetry with the Goldmann perimeter were performed on 171 eyes: 69 with glaucoma or ocular hypertension, 69 with "neurologic" disorders, and 33 normal. The two fields were similar or differed only slightly in 78% of eyes overall and in 88% when both fields appeared reliable. In general, defects were slightly more extensive using the Humphrey than the Goldmann perimeter. In 21% of the eyes with glaucoma or ocular hypertension, defects were found with the Humphrey perimeter that were not present with the Goldmann perimeter. Patient fixation was more difficult to maintain on the Humphrey than Goldmann perimeter. Poor fixation accounted for 9% of the automated fields being inadequate whereas only 2% of the manual fields were inadequate. The results indicate that the Humphrey Field Analyzer is capable of reliably detecting and quantitating visual field defects.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2005

[Conventional techniques of visual field examination Part 2: confrontation visual field testing -- kinetic perimetry].

Evaluation of visual field findings is an essential ophthalmological task. Applying psychophysical principles enables noninvasive (topo-)diagnosis in cases of unexplained visual loss or suspected lesions of the visual pathway. Furthermore, any kind of expert opinion or ability test critically depends on adequate visual field findings. Repeated examinations allow functional follow-up of a disease and assessment of therapeutic efficiency. This paper explicitly focuses on conventional strategies since these are widespread, easily accessible, standardized, and well established in everyday practice over years. Standardized white-on-white perimetry with moving targets (kinetic perimetry) is the major topic of this paper (part 2) in addition to "rough"/preliminary confrontation visual field testing. This review series is aimed at imparting basic concepts in perimetry and psychophysics to ophthalmologists and also addresses interested physicians from other disciplines.

Eye Movements↗
PubMed2001

Effectiveness of testing visual fields by confrontation.

Many tests are used to examine visual fields by confrontation, but such methods have not been thoroughly compared with an accepted reference standard. The choice of test might affect the identification of subtle defects in the visual field. We prospectively compared seven confrontation field tests with full-threshold automated static perimetry among 138 outpatients in an eye clinic. Our primary outcome was detection of a defect in the visual field. With automated perimetry, most field defects were small or shallow. Most confrontation field tests were insensitive in the identification of field loss. The most sensitive method was examination of the central 20 degrees visual field with a small red target (73% [95% CI 63-82]). Assessment of the visual field should thus include such a test.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1984

Static and kinetic visual field testing. Reproducibility in normal volunteers.

The SD of static visual threshold ranges from 0.12 log units near fixation to 0.41 log units 30 degrees from fixation. Among 60 points tested, most persons have at least one point that tests 0.5 log units less sensitive than the adjacent points, simulating a scotoma 0.5 log units deep. With automated kinetic perimetry, the SD of isopter position is 2.6 degrees to 5.5 degrees, with the greatest variation appearing in the temporal field where the slope is flatter and the isopters are more peripheral. More than 10% of the points show an inward deviation of 5 degrees or more compared with their neighboring points. Retesting of the deviant points is required to distinguish an artifact caused by variable responsiveness from true localized defects. Judgments about progression also require that the accuracy of the isopter position or threshold determination be taken into account.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

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

BACKGROUND: Despite their normal or near-normal Snellen visual acuity, patients with glaucoma often complain of "poor" vision. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between large-letter contrast sensitivity, high-contrast visual acuity, and visual field defects in patients with glaucoma who have 20/40 or better visual acuity. DESIGN: Prospective, cross-sectional case series. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We evaluated 250 eyes of 144 subjects from the Glaucoma Service at the University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine. Subjects with a diagnosis of glaucoma, suspected glaucoma, or ocular hypertension who met the 20/40 or better vision requirement were recruited. Visual acuity was measured using the rear-illuminated Lighthouse Visual Acuity Chart at 4 m. Contrast sensitivity was measured using the Pelli-Robson Chart in a front-illuminated box with even luminance across the chart. Visual fields of the patients were measured using the 24-2 full-threshold program on the Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer. RESULTS: A significant correlation (r = 0.57, P < 0.001, n = 127) was found between the visual field mean deviations and the contrast sensitivity scores. The correlation (r = -0.322, P < 0.001, n = 127) was less between the visual field mean deviation and the log MAR visual acuity values, as was the correlation between the contrast sensitivity scores and log MAR visual acuity values (r = -0.370, P < 0.001, n = 127). In the subgroup of patients with chronic open-angle glaucoma, the correlation between the mean visual field deviation and the contrast sensitivity score was higher at 0.689 (P < or = 0.001, n = 62). CONCLUSIONS: Reduced contrast sensitivity is significantly correlated with visual field losses in patients with glaucoma and a visual acuity of 20/40 or better. The study data support the conclusion that, compared with visual acuity, the disease process preferentially affects contrast sensitivity. In our previous work, contrast sensitivity was shown to be more related than visual acuity to real-world function in patients with early glaucomatous changes.

Contrast Sensitivity↗
PubMed1992

Peripheral visual field testing in glaucoma by automated kinetic perimetry with the Humphrey Field Analyzer.

A Humphrey automated perimeter was used to measure the central 24 degrees of vision with static threshold targets and the peripheral field with two automatic kinetic stimuli in 100 eyes of 100 patients with glaucoma or a suspicion of glaucoma and to compare the additional information gained with the peripheral tests. The peripheral visual field supported the diagnosis made with central field testing in approximately one third of the eyes and added additional diagnostic information in another fourth of the cases. In 4% of patients a normal central field was associated with a glaucomatous peripheral defect. Virtually all peripheral defects were in the nasal quadrant, and the more sensitive isopter uncovered the vast majority of the defects.

Automation↗