Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2008
Humphrey Matrix perimetry in optic nerve and chiasmal disorders: comparison with Humphrey SITA standard 24-2.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Huang Charles Q, Carolan James, Redline Daniel, Taravati Parisa, Woodward Kimberly R, Johnson Chris A, Wall Michael, Keltner John L
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the Humphrey Matrix 24-2 perimetry (Matrix; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, CA) with the standard automated perimetry Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer using SITA (Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm) program 24-2 (SAP; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc.) in neuro-ophthalmic disorders affecting the optic nerve and chiasm.
METHODS: Matrix and SAP were performed on 93 patients with neuro-ophthalmic disorders affecting the optic nerve and optic chiasm. Three readers compared the total and pattern deviation probability plots and judged the similarity and the extent of the visual field defects. The sensitivity and specificity of both perimeters were calculated.
RESULTS: Concordance was good in 61%, fair in 30%, and poor in 9% of the total deviation plots. For the pattern deviation, concordance was good in 52%, fair in 34%, and poor in 14%. The extent of field loss was equal in 50%, 23% more extensive with Matrix, and 27% more extensive with SAP for total deviation plots. For the pattern deviation, the extent was equal in 47%, 20% more extensive with Matrix and 33% more extensive with SAP. The sensitivity for detecting defects was 84% (SAP) and 77% (Matrix) for total deviation and 80% (SAP) and 79% (Matrix) for pattern deviation (no significant difference, P > 0.05). The specificity was 84% (SAP) and 86% (Matrix) for total deviation and 68% (SAP) and 74% (Matrix) for pattern deviation (no significant difference, P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The new Humphrey Matrix 24-2 testing strategy provides a visual field testing method for optic nerve and chiasmal disorders that has fair to good concordance with the Humphrey SITA Standard 24-2 program. Both tests have similar sensitivity and specificity.
METHODS: Matrix and SAP were performed on 93 patients with neuro-ophthalmic disorders affecting the optic nerve and optic chiasm. Three readers compared the total and pattern deviation probability plots and judged the similarity and the extent of the visual field defects. The sensitivity and specificity of both perimeters were calculated.
RESULTS: Concordance was good in 61%, fair in 30%, and poor in 9% of the total deviation plots. For the pattern deviation, concordance was good in 52%, fair in 34%, and poor in 14%. The extent of field loss was equal in 50%, 23% more extensive with Matrix, and 27% more extensive with SAP for total deviation plots. For the pattern deviation, the extent was equal in 47%, 20% more extensive with Matrix and 33% more extensive with SAP. The sensitivity for detecting defects was 84% (SAP) and 77% (Matrix) for total deviation and 80% (SAP) and 79% (Matrix) for pattern deviation (no significant difference, P > 0.05). The specificity was 84% (SAP) and 86% (Matrix) for total deviation and 68% (SAP) and 74% (Matrix) for pattern deviation (no significant difference, P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The new Humphrey Matrix 24-2 testing strategy provides a visual field testing method for optic nerve and chiasmal disorders that has fair to good concordance with the Humphrey SITA Standard 24-2 program. Both tests have similar sensitivity and specificity.