Ophthalmology · 1995
Confrontation visual field loss as a function of decibel sensitivity loss on automated static perimetry. Implications on the accuracy of confrontation visual field testing.
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.
Shahinfar S, Johnson L N, Madsen R W
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of confrontation visual field testing with regard to the density of the visual field defect and its location in the peripheral visual field.
METHODS: A prospective comparison of confrontation visual field testing with full-threshold Humphrey automated static perimetry C24-2 or C30-2 was conducted at a university eye center over a 3-month period. Seventy-two patients with a variety of neurologic and ophthalmologic conditions underwent confrontation visual field testing and automated perimetry as a part of their evaluation. One visual field from each patient was analyzed for this study.
RESULTS: Confrontation visual field testing yielded an overall sensitivity for detecting an abnormal visual field (full-field analysis) of 63%, when sensitivity of confrontation testing rested on the detection of just one abnormal quadrant. The sensitivity of confrontation testing varied depending on the type of visual field loss present: 51% for arcuate scotomas, 67% for visual field constriction, 78% for altitudinal scotomas, and 90% for hemianopias. The sensitivity of detecting abnormal visual field quadrants, rather than the full-field analysis, was, however, poor at 38%. The sensitivity of confrontation testing was lower for superior quadrant defects and higher for inferior quadrant defects. The estimated probability of detecting an abnormal visual field quadrant occurring at a -26-decibel sensitivity loss from age-matched healthy patients for superior quadrant defects and a -19-decibel sensitivity loss for inferior quadrant defects was 50%. The increased sensitivity noted for visual field defects and for inferior quadrant defects appears to be related, in part, to the density of the visual field loss present.
CONCLUSION: Confrontation visual field testing is relatively insensitive unless a moderate to dense defect is present, and as such is a poor screening test. However, when visual field defects are identified with confrontation visual field testing, the defects often are real as per the high specificity (97%) and high positive predictive value (96%).
METHODS: A prospective comparison of confrontation visual field testing with full-threshold Humphrey automated static perimetry C24-2 or C30-2 was conducted at a university eye center over a 3-month period. Seventy-two patients with a variety of neurologic and ophthalmologic conditions underwent confrontation visual field testing and automated perimetry as a part of their evaluation. One visual field from each patient was analyzed for this study.
RESULTS: Confrontation visual field testing yielded an overall sensitivity for detecting an abnormal visual field (full-field analysis) of 63%, when sensitivity of confrontation testing rested on the detection of just one abnormal quadrant. The sensitivity of confrontation testing varied depending on the type of visual field loss present: 51% for arcuate scotomas, 67% for visual field constriction, 78% for altitudinal scotomas, and 90% for hemianopias. The sensitivity of detecting abnormal visual field quadrants, rather than the full-field analysis, was, however, poor at 38%. The sensitivity of confrontation testing was lower for superior quadrant defects and higher for inferior quadrant defects. The estimated probability of detecting an abnormal visual field quadrant occurring at a -26-decibel sensitivity loss from age-matched healthy patients for superior quadrant defects and a -19-decibel sensitivity loss for inferior quadrant defects was 50%. The increased sensitivity noted for visual field defects and for inferior quadrant defects appears to be related, in part, to the density of the visual field loss present.
CONCLUSION: Confrontation visual field testing is relatively insensitive unless a moderate to dense defect is present, and as such is a poor screening test. However, when visual field defects are identified with confrontation visual field testing, the defects often are real as per the high specificity (97%) and high positive predictive value (96%).