Online citations, reference lists, and bibliographies.
Please confirm you are human
(Sign Up for free to never see this)
← Back to Search

False-negative Responses In Glaucoma Perimetry: Indicators Of Patient Performance Or Test Reliability?

Bengtsson, Heijl
Published 2000 · Medicine

Save to my Library
Download PDF
Analyze on Scholarcy
Share
PURPOSE. To study whether false-negative answers in computerized glaucoma perimetry indicate the patient's ability to perform perimetry or test result reliability. METHODS. A retrospective evaluation was performed of visual field test results obtained with a perimetry program (Humphrey 30-2 Sita Standard; Humphrey Instruments, San Leandro, CA) in 70 consecutive patients with unilateral glaucomatous field loss. Frequencies of false-negative answers were compared between the two eyes of each patient and related to amount of visual field damage in the glaucomatous eyes using linear regression analysis. RESULTS. Frequencies of false-negative answers were higher in eyes with field loss. The intrapatient intereye difference was 6.6% on average (P < 0.0001). In seven subjects with false-negative frequency of 5% or more in both eyes, the mean difference was 12.7% between eyes. The differences in false-negative answers depended significantly on the amount of field loss in the glaucomatous eyes (P = 0.0003). Larger differences were seen in patients with advanced field loss in the affected eye. CONCLUSIONS. The increased frequencies of false-negative answers in eyes with field loss were strongly associated with field status. The higher false-negative frequencies in eyes with glaucomatous field loss compared with unaffected eyes may be explained by the increased variability in threshold values typically found in such eyes. False-negative answers in patients with glaucoma therefore represent eye rather than patient status.
This paper references
10.1001/ARCHOPHT.1992.01080180084033
Glaucoma Hemifield Test. Automated visual field evaluation.
P. Åsman (1992)
Atlas of Visual Fields. Philadelphia: Lippincott–Raven
Dl Budenz (1997)
10.1016/S0161-6420(91)32339-X
Reliability of visual field results over repeated testing.
J. Katz (1991)
A package for statistical analysis of computerized fields
A Heijl (1987)
10.1016/S0161-6420(90)32467-3
Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss. The effect of patient reliability.
J. Katz (1990)
10.1001/ARCHOPHT.1988.01060140412043
Reliability indexes of automated perimetric tests.
J. Katz (1988)
10.1001/ARCHOPHT.1984.01040030700022
Covariates of the long-term fluctuation of the differential light threshold.
J. Flammer (1984)
10.1016/S0002-9394(14)76161-6
Long-term fluctuation of the visual field in glaucoma.
R. J. Boeglin (1992)
Automated perimetry in glaucoma : fluctuation behavior and general and local reduction of sensitivity
C. T. Langerhorst (1988)
10.1364/AO.27.001030
Fatigue effects in automated perimetry.
C. Johnson (1988)
10.1080/0065955x.1992.11981920
Automated Static Perimetry
D. Anderson (1992)
10.1111/J.1600-0420.1997.TB00392.X
A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry, SITA.
B. Bengtsson (1997)
Visual Field Testing with the Humphrey Analyzer. Thorofare, NJ: Slack; 1995:73
NT Choplin (1995)
10.1007/978-94-009-3325-5_75
Reliability parameters in computerized perimetry
A. Heijl (1987)
Perimetrie
BJ Lachenmayr (1992)
Maximum likelihood estimation of the frequency of false positive and false negative answers from the up-and-down staircase of computerized threshold perimetry
J Olsson (1989)
10.1034/J.1600-0420.2000.078005519.X
Reliability of computerized perimetric threshold tests as assessed by reliability indices and threshold reproducibility in patients with suspect and manifest glaucoma.
B. Bengtsson (2000)
10.1097/00006982-199111040-00029
Visual Fields: Examination and Interpretation.
D. Frohlichstein (1991)
10.1111/j.1755-3768.1975.tb01161.x
AN AUTOMATIC STATIC PERIMETER, DESIGN AND PILOT STUDY
A. Heijl (1975)
10.1034/J.1600-0420.1998.760408.X
SITA Fast, a new rapid perimetric threshold test. Description of methods and evaluation in patients with manifest and suspect glaucoma.
B. Bengtsson (1998)
Influence of amount of glaucoma field loss on intereye intrapatient differences of false-negative responses was large and significant , P ϭ 0
10.1001/ARCHOPHT.1984.01040030560017
Differential light threshold. Short- and long-term fluctuation in patients with glaucoma, normal controls, and patients with suspected glaucoma.
J. Flammer (1984)
10.1016/S0161-6420(97)30173-0
Analysis of reliability indices from Humphrey visual field tests in an urban glaucoma population.
C. Birt (1997)
Increased scatter of responses as a precursor of visual field changes in glaucoma.
Werner Eb (1977)
10.1111/J.1600-0420.1997.TB00120.X
An improved method to estimate frequency of false positive answers in computerized perimetry.
J. Olsson (1997)
Visual Field Testing with the Humphrey Analyzer
Nt Choplin (1995)
10.1016/0039-6257(77)90094-7
Some aspects of the automation of perimetry.
F. Frankhauser (1977)
Increased scatter of responses as a precursor of visual field changes in glaucoma.
E. Werner (1977)
10.1136/bjo.67.8.512
Changes in differential threshold in patients with glaucoma during prolonged perimetry.
A. Heijl (1983)
Bj Lachenmayr (1992)
IOVS
(2000)
Variability of automated visual fields in clinically stable glaucoma patients.
E. Werner (1989)
10.1016/S0002-9394(14)75602-8
Test-retest variability in glaucomatous visual fields.
J. Piltz (1990)
Bengtsson (2000)



This paper is referenced by
10.1136/bjophthalmol-2018-312162
Effect of optic disc–fovea distance on the normative classifications of macular inner retinal layers as assessed with OCT in healthy subjects
K. Qiu (2018)
10.1080/02713683.2017.1293114
Comparison of Size Modulation Standard Automated Perimetry and Conventional Standard Automated Perimetry with a 10-2 Test Program in Glaucoma Patients
Kazunori Hirasawa (2017)
10.1167/iovs.15-16445
Applying "Lasso" Regression to Predict Future Visual Field Progression in Glaucoma Patients.
Y. Fujino (2015)
10.1097/IJG.0000000000001581
The Relationship Between Corneal Hysteresis and Progression of Glaucoma After Trabeculectomy
Y. Fujino (2020)
10.1016/j.ogla.2020.01.001
Improving the Structure-Function Relationship in Glaucomatous Visual Fields by Using a Deep Learning-Based Noise Reduction Approach.
R. Asaoka (2020)
10.1016/S0161-6420(02)01297-6
Misleading statistical calculations in far-advanced glaucomatous visual field loss.
E. Blumenthal (2003)
10.1167/iovs.15-17988
Estimating the Usefulness of Humphrey Perimetry Gaze Tracking for Evaluating Structure-Function Relationship in Glaucoma.
Yukako Ishiyama (2015)
10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2019.5413
Characterization of Central Visual Field Loss in End-stage Glaucoma by Unsupervised Artificial Intelligence.
Mengyu Wang (2020)
10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-304319
Evaluation of various machine learning methods to predict vision-related quality of life from visual field data and visual acuity in patients with glaucoma
H. Hirasawa (2014)
10.1016/j.ajo.2018.10.007
Using Deep Learning and Transfer Learning to Accurately Diagnose Early-Onset Glaucoma From Macular Optical Coherence Tomography Images.
R. Asaoka (2019)
10.1038/s41598-017-07714-7
The association between structure-function relationships and cognitive impairment in elderly glaucoma patients
M. Honjo (2017)
10.1097/IJG.0000000000000372
The Relationship Between Vision-related Quality of Life and Visual Function in Glaucoma Patients
K. Hirooka (2016)
10.1167/iovs.14-16341
How Many Visual Fields Are Required to Precisely Predict Future Test Results in Glaucoma Patients When Using Different Trend Analyses?
Y. Taketani (2015)
10.1016/J.OGLA.2018.10.010
Development of a Novel Corneal Concavity Shape Parameter and Its Association with Glaucomatous Visual Field Progression.
S. Aoki (2019)
Influence of age, race, sex, and socioeconomic status on false-negative rates of visual fields in glaucoma
J. Song (2005)
10.1111/j.1755-3768.2012.02435.x
Comparison of clinicians and an artificial neural network regarding accuracy and certainty in performance of visual field assessment for the diagnosis of glaucoma
S. Andersson (2013)
10.1016/j.ajo.2020.07.047
A strategy for seeding point error assessment for retesting (SPEAR) in perimetryapplied tonormal, suspect and glaucoma patients.
Jack Phu (2020)
10.1371/journal.pone.0222467
Impact of tear metrics on the reliability of perimetry in patients with dry eye
Hideto Sagara (2019)
10.1016/S0161-6420(02)01726-8
Automated perimetry: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.
M. F. Delgado (2002)
10.1186/1471-2415-14-166
Does the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) accurately map visual field loss attributed to vigabatrin?
M. Conway (2014)
10.1167/iovs.12-10428
The relationship between variability and sensitivity in large-scale longitudinal visual field data.
Richard A. Russell (2012)
10.1186/s12886-017-0613-1
Factors associated with the occurrence of a fall in subjects with primary open-angle glaucoma
Sayaka Adachi (2017)
10.1002/sim.7235
Bayesian hierarchical modeling of longitudinal glaucomatous visual fields using a two-stage approach.
S. Bryan (2017)
10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.09.021
Reversal of Glaucoma Hemifield Test Results and Visual Field Features in Glaucoma.
Mengyu Wang (2018)
10.1097/OPX.0000000000000447
A Perimetric Test Procedure That Uses Structural Information
S. B. Ganeshrao (2015)
10.1167/iovs.15-16691
Global Visit Effects in Point-Wise Longitudinal Modeling of Glaucomatous Visual Fields.
S. Bryan (2015)
10.1016/j.ajo.2018.10.010
A New SITA Perimetric Threshold Testing Algorithm: Construction and a Multicenter Clinical Study.
A. Heijl (2019)
10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003114
Cross-sectional study: Does combining optical coherence tomography measurements using the ‘Random Forest’ decision tree classifier improve the prediction of the presence of perimetric deterioration in glaucoma suspects?
K. Sugimoto (2013)
10.1167/iovs.61.10.51
A Prediction Method of Visual Field Sensitivity Using Fundus Autofluorescence Images in Patients With Retinitis Pigmentosa
T. Inoue (2020)
10.1167/iovs.10-6985
Retinal oximetry in primary open-angle glaucoma.
O. Olafsdottir (2011)
10.1167/iovs.17-23683
Consistency of Structure-Function Correlation Between Spatially Scaled Visual Field Stimuli and In Vivo OCT Ganglion Cell Counts.
Nayuta Yoshioka (2018)
10.1167/iovs.61.4.10
Comparing Structure-Function Relationships Based on Drasdo's and Sjöstrand's Retinal Ganglion Cell Displacement Models
Kazunori Hirasawa (2020)
See more
Semantic Scholar Logo Some data provided by SemanticScholar