[Zhonghua yan ke za zhi] Chinese journal of ophthalmology · 2003
[Reliability of successive automated static perimetry].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание 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.
Wu Jin-song, Wang Da-bo, Wang Jing-hua
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study was to explore the reliability of successive automated static perimetry in suspect and manifest glaucoma patients.
METHODS: Retrospective investigation was performed on 82 glaucomatous eyes and 80 suspect glaucoma eyes which were tested twice or more during Aug 1994 and June 2000 with the Octopus 1-2-3 automated perimeter. False-positive response rate (FP), false-negative response rate (FN) and reliability factor (RF) were calculated and analyzed.
RESULTS: According to the reference criterion provided by the manufacturer (Interzeag company), in suspect glaucoma patients, only 5.1% visual field test results (8 eyes) were unreliable, while the unreliable rate was 18.1% (20 eyes) in manifest glaucoma patients. FP, FN and RF all had highly skewed distributions in each subgroup of suspect and manifest glaucoma patients. The FN of each subgroup of manifest glaucoma patients was significantly higher than that of suspect glaucoma patients (P < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Automated perimetry can provide a reliable result in most suspect glaucoma eyes. A few unreliable results may be regarded as sporadic events. FN in glaucoma patients are related to the status of visual field defects.
METHODS: Retrospective investigation was performed on 82 glaucomatous eyes and 80 suspect glaucoma eyes which were tested twice or more during Aug 1994 and June 2000 with the Octopus 1-2-3 automated perimeter. False-positive response rate (FP), false-negative response rate (FN) and reliability factor (RF) were calculated and analyzed.
RESULTS: According to the reference criterion provided by the manufacturer (Interzeag company), in suspect glaucoma patients, only 5.1% visual field test results (8 eyes) were unreliable, while the unreliable rate was 18.1% (20 eyes) in manifest glaucoma patients. FP, FN and RF all had highly skewed distributions in each subgroup of suspect and manifest glaucoma patients. The FN of each subgroup of manifest glaucoma patients was significantly higher than that of suspect glaucoma patients (P < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Automated perimetry can provide a reliable result in most suspect glaucoma eyes. A few unreliable results may be regarded as sporadic events. FN in glaucoma patients are related to the status of visual field defects.