SITA-Standard perimetry has better performance than FDT2 matrix perimetry for detecting glaucomatous progression

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid


PurposeThe Humphrey Matrix (FDT2) may be more sensitive in detecting glaucomatous visual field loss than SITA standard automated perimetry (SAP) performed on the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA). Therefore, FDT may be a good candidate to determine disease progression in patients with glaucoma. Our aim was to test the hypothesis that automated perimetry using the FDT2 would be equal to, or more effective than, HFA SITA-Standard, in identifying glaucomatous progression.MethodsOne hundred and twenty patients with glaucoma were tested twice at baseline and every 6 months for 4 years with HFA SITA-Standard and FDT2. FDT2 values were standardised to HFA SAP values. We used pointwise linear regression (PLR) over the full data series to identify glaucomatous progression and generated an array of results using three different criteria: (1) three or more clustered test locations progressing, (2) three or more non-clustered test locations progressing and (3) total number of progressing test locations. We compared HFA SAP and FDT2 for the number of locations signalled by the PLR detection algorithm.ResultsRegardless of the criteria, HFA SAP with SITA-Standard testing detected visual field progression at a higher rate than the FDT2 overall (P<0.001).ConclusionHFA SAP identifies glaucomatous visual field progression at a rate at least as high if not higher than FDT2.

    loading  Loading Related Articles