Comparison of Reliability Indices in Conventional and High-pass Resolution Perimetry

Balwantray C. Chauhan; Rajender N. Mohandas; James H. Whelan; Terry A. McCormick

doi:10.1016/S0161-6420(93)31534-4

Comparison of Reliability Indices in Conventional and High-pass Resolution Perimetry

Balwantray C. Chauhan, Rajender N. Mohandas, James H. Whelan, Terry A. McCormick

Medicine

Medicine

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare reliability indices in conventional (Humphrey) and high-pass resolution (Ring) perimetry in healthy subjects followed prospectively at 6-month intervals. Methods: Of the 146 healthy subjects (mean age, 50.24 years; range, 30-84 years) enrolled in the study, 102 have been tested twice and 71 three times. The authors compared the reliability indices, fixation losses, false-positive rate, and false-negative rate between the two techniques, both cross-sectionally and serially. Results: Fixation losses were slightly higher with high-pass resolution perimetry, whereas false-positive errors were higher with conventional perimetry. False-negative errors were uncommon with either technique. Of 319 fields, 30 (9.4%) conventional and 39 (12.2%) high-pass resolution perimetry fields were unreliable using the current suggested reliability criteria. Nearly all unreliable fields were due to high fixation errors. Using alternative criteria derived from baseline 95th percentile values, unreliable fields were attributed more equally to all three reliability parameters. In subjects tested three times, the reliability indices remained constant. Conclusion: The results of this study showed that healthy subjects have comparable reliability indices when tested with conventional and high-pass resolution perimetry.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1089-1094
Number of pages	6
Journal	Ophthalmology
Volume	100
Issue number	7
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(93)31534-4
Publication status	Published - 1993

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
Originally received: November 2, 1992. Revision accepted: January 20, 1993. From the Department of Ophthalmology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Presented in part at the tenth International Perimetric Society meeting, Kyoto, Japan, October 1992. Supported in part by the research grant MT-11357 from the Medical Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Canada (Dr. Chauhan). Each author states that s/he has no proprietary interest in the development or marketing of these or competitive pieces of equipment. Reprint requests to Balwantray C. Chauhan, PhD, Nova Scotia Eye Centre, Camp Hill Medical Centre, 1335 Queen St, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3J 2H6.

ASJC Scopus Subject Areas

Ophthalmology

PubMed: MeSH publication types

Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Access to Document

10.1016/S0161-6420(93)31534-4

Cite this

@article{a2147156d7664bba81a80d276e551722,

title = "Comparison of Reliability Indices in Conventional and High-pass Resolution Perimetry",

abstract = "Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare reliability indices in conventional (Humphrey) and high-pass resolution (Ring) perimetry in healthy subjects followed prospectively at 6-month intervals. Methods: Of the 146 healthy subjects (mean age, 50.24 years; range, 30-84 years) enrolled in the study, 102 have been tested twice and 71 three times. The authors compared the reliability indices, fixation losses, false-positive rate, and false-negative rate between the two techniques, both cross-sectionally and serially. Results: Fixation losses were slightly higher with high-pass resolution perimetry, whereas false-positive errors were higher with conventional perimetry. False-negative errors were uncommon with either technique. Of 319 fields, 30 (9.4%) conventional and 39 (12.2%) high-pass resolution perimetry fields were unreliable using the current suggested reliability criteria. Nearly all unreliable fields were due to high fixation errors. Using alternative criteria derived from baseline 95th percentile values, unreliable fields were attributed more equally to all three reliability parameters. In subjects tested three times, the reliability indices remained constant. Conclusion: The results of this study showed that healthy subjects have comparable reliability indices when tested with conventional and high-pass resolution perimetry.",

author = "Chauhan, {Balwantray C.} and Mohandas, {Rajender N.} and Whelan, {James H.} and McCormick, {Terry A.}",

note = "Funding Information: Originally received: November 2, 1992. Revision accepted: January 20, 1993. From the Department of Ophthalmology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Presented in part at the tenth International Perimetric Society meeting, Kyoto, Japan, October 1992. Supported in part by the research grant MT-11357 from the Medical Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Canada (Dr. Chauhan). Each author states that s/he has no proprietary interest in the development or marketing of these or competitive pieces of equipment. Reprint requests to Balwantray C. Chauhan, PhD, Nova Scotia Eye Centre, Camp Hill Medical Centre, 1335 Queen St, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3J 2H6.",

year = "1993",

doi = "10.1016/S0161-6420(93)31534-4",

language = "English",

volume = "100",

pages = "1089--1094",

journal = "Ophthalmology",

issn = "0161-6420",

publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of Reliability Indices in Conventional and High-pass Resolution Perimetry

AU - Chauhan, Balwantray C.

AU - Mohandas, Rajender N.

AU - Whelan, James H.

AU - McCormick, Terry A.

N1 - Funding Information: Originally received: November 2, 1992. Revision accepted: January 20, 1993. From the Department of Ophthalmology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Presented in part at the tenth International Perimetric Society meeting, Kyoto, Japan, October 1992. Supported in part by the research grant MT-11357 from the Medical Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Canada (Dr. Chauhan). Each author states that s/he has no proprietary interest in the development or marketing of these or competitive pieces of equipment. Reprint requests to Balwantray C. Chauhan, PhD, Nova Scotia Eye Centre, Camp Hill Medical Centre, 1335 Queen St, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3J 2H6.

PY - 1993

Y1 - 1993

N2 - Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare reliability indices in conventional (Humphrey) and high-pass resolution (Ring) perimetry in healthy subjects followed prospectively at 6-month intervals. Methods: Of the 146 healthy subjects (mean age, 50.24 years; range, 30-84 years) enrolled in the study, 102 have been tested twice and 71 three times. The authors compared the reliability indices, fixation losses, false-positive rate, and false-negative rate between the two techniques, both cross-sectionally and serially. Results: Fixation losses were slightly higher with high-pass resolution perimetry, whereas false-positive errors were higher with conventional perimetry. False-negative errors were uncommon with either technique. Of 319 fields, 30 (9.4%) conventional and 39 (12.2%) high-pass resolution perimetry fields were unreliable using the current suggested reliability criteria. Nearly all unreliable fields were due to high fixation errors. Using alternative criteria derived from baseline 95th percentile values, unreliable fields were attributed more equally to all three reliability parameters. In subjects tested three times, the reliability indices remained constant. Conclusion: The results of this study showed that healthy subjects have comparable reliability indices when tested with conventional and high-pass resolution perimetry.

AB - Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare reliability indices in conventional (Humphrey) and high-pass resolution (Ring) perimetry in healthy subjects followed prospectively at 6-month intervals. Methods: Of the 146 healthy subjects (mean age, 50.24 years; range, 30-84 years) enrolled in the study, 102 have been tested twice and 71 three times. The authors compared the reliability indices, fixation losses, false-positive rate, and false-negative rate between the two techniques, both cross-sectionally and serially. Results: Fixation losses were slightly higher with high-pass resolution perimetry, whereas false-positive errors were higher with conventional perimetry. False-negative errors were uncommon with either technique. Of 319 fields, 30 (9.4%) conventional and 39 (12.2%) high-pass resolution perimetry fields were unreliable using the current suggested reliability criteria. Nearly all unreliable fields were due to high fixation errors. Using alternative criteria derived from baseline 95th percentile values, unreliable fields were attributed more equally to all three reliability parameters. In subjects tested three times, the reliability indices remained constant. Conclusion: The results of this study showed that healthy subjects have comparable reliability indices when tested with conventional and high-pass resolution perimetry.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0027287465&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0027287465&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0161-6420(93)31534-4

DO - 10.1016/S0161-6420(93)31534-4

M3 - Article

C2 - 8321533

AN - SCOPUS:0027287465

SN - 0161-6420

VL - 100

SP - 1089

EP - 1094

JO - Ophthalmology

JF - Ophthalmology

IS - 7

ER -

Comparison of Reliability Indices in Conventional and High-pass Resolution Perimetry

Abstract

Bibliographical note

ASJC Scopus Subject Areas

PubMed: MeSH publication types

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this