Advanced

Reliability of computerized perimetric threshold tests as assessed by reliability indices and threshold reproducibility in patients with suspect and manifest glaucoma

Bengtsson, Boel LU (2000) In Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica1998-01-01+01:002008-01-01+01:00 78(5). p.22-519
Abstract

BACKGROUND: High reproducibility of test measurements is often considered an indication of high reliability of test results. The aim of the current study was to analyse the role of the traditional perimetric reliability indices, False Negative and False Positive responses, and Fixation Losses, as indicators of test reliability in comparison with threshold reproducibility in patients with suspect or manifest glaucoma.

METHODS: Perimetry was performed in one eye in each of 76 patients. Each eye was tested twice within approximately one week using the Humphrey II 30-2 SITA STANDARD program. Frequencies of False Positive and False Negative answers, and rates of Fixation Losses were related to threshold reproducibility and to general... (More)

BACKGROUND: High reproducibility of test measurements is often considered an indication of high reliability of test results. The aim of the current study was to analyse the role of the traditional perimetric reliability indices, False Negative and False Positive responses, and Fixation Losses, as indicators of test reliability in comparison with threshold reproducibility in patients with suspect or manifest glaucoma.

METHODS: Perimetry was performed in one eye in each of 76 patients. Each eye was tested twice within approximately one week using the Humphrey II 30-2 SITA STANDARD program. Frequencies of False Positive and False Negative answers, and rates of Fixation Losses were related to threshold reproducibility and to general field status as expressed by Mean Deviation from age-normal threshold values using stepwise multiple linear regression analysis.

RESULTS: Substantial field loss was associated both with low threshold reproducibility (p<0.0001) and with increased frequency of False Negative answers (p=0.047). The traditional reliability indices contributed marginally compared to amount of field loss when predicting threshold reproducibility; the coefficient of determination decreased non-significantly from 0.37 to 0.33 when excluding the three reliability indices as explanatory variables from the regression model. Frequencies of False Positive answers and Fixation Losses showed no association to field status or to threshold reproducibility.

CONCLUSION: Reliability of visual field test results in patients with glaucoma expressed as threshold reproducibility, can be predicted by amount of field loss alone, and traditional patient reliability indices contribute surprisingly little in this regard.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, False Positive Reactions, Female, Glaucoma, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Ocular Hypertension, Predictive Value of Tests, Reproducibility of Results, Sensitivity and Specificity, Sensory Thresholds, Vision Disorders, Visual Field Tests, Visual Fields
in
Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica1998-01-01+01:002008-01-01+01:00
volume
78
issue
5
pages
4 pages
publisher
Wiley-Blackwell
external identifiers
  • Scopus:0033828907
ISSN
1395-3907
DOI
10.1034/j.1600-0420.2000.078005519.x
language
English
LU publication?
no
id
1b50fef7-ac54-4df2-a9cd-d747c7d8afc3
date added to LUP
2016-04-21 10:24:33
date last changed
2016-10-13 05:06:50
@misc{1b50fef7-ac54-4df2-a9cd-d747c7d8afc3,
  abstract     = {<p>BACKGROUND: High reproducibility of test measurements is often considered an indication of high reliability of test results. The aim of the current study was to analyse the role of the traditional perimetric reliability indices, False Negative and False Positive responses, and Fixation Losses, as indicators of test reliability in comparison with threshold reproducibility in patients with suspect or manifest glaucoma.</p><p>METHODS: Perimetry was performed in one eye in each of 76 patients. Each eye was tested twice within approximately one week using the Humphrey II 30-2 SITA STANDARD program. Frequencies of False Positive and False Negative answers, and rates of Fixation Losses were related to threshold reproducibility and to general field status as expressed by Mean Deviation from age-normal threshold values using stepwise multiple linear regression analysis.</p><p>RESULTS: Substantial field loss was associated both with low threshold reproducibility (p&lt;0.0001) and with increased frequency of False Negative answers (p=0.047). The traditional reliability indices contributed marginally compared to amount of field loss when predicting threshold reproducibility; the coefficient of determination decreased non-significantly from 0.37 to 0.33 when excluding the three reliability indices as explanatory variables from the regression model. Frequencies of False Positive answers and Fixation Losses showed no association to field status or to threshold reproducibility.</p><p>CONCLUSION: Reliability of visual field test results in patients with glaucoma expressed as threshold reproducibility, can be predicted by amount of field loss alone, and traditional patient reliability indices contribute surprisingly little in this regard.</p>},
  author       = {Bengtsson, Boel},
  issn         = {1395-3907},
  keyword      = {Aged,Aged, 80 and over,False Positive Reactions,Female,Glaucoma,Humans,Male,Middle Aged,Ocular Hypertension,Predictive Value of Tests,Reproducibility of Results,Sensitivity and Specificity,Sensory Thresholds,Vision Disorders,Visual Field Tests,Visual Fields},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {5},
  pages        = {22--519},
  publisher    = {ARRAY(0xa4b3c30)},
  series       = {Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica1998-01-01+01:002008-01-01+01:00},
  title        = {Reliability of computerized perimetric threshold tests as assessed by reliability indices and threshold reproducibility in patients with suspect and manifest glaucoma},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0420.2000.078005519.x},
  volume       = {78},
  year         = {2000},
}