A Comparison of Diagnostic Protocols for Interpretation of Frequency Doubling Perimetry Visual Fields in Glaucoma

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid


BackgroundFrequency doubling perimetry (FDP) shows good correlation with achromatic automated perimetry in the assessment of glaucoma. However, many recommended protocols lead to a significant number of false positives and negatives. Therefore, it may be difficult to identify visual field loss owing to glaucoma. We investigated the accuracy of a diagnostic protocol that only considered either temporal wedge, arcuate, or nasal step field loss on an FDP field as significant.MethodsSixty-eight subjects who were glaucoma suspects, glaucoma patients or normal controls were recruited selectively. After achromatic automated perimetry and FDP visual field testing, results were compared between a conventional protocol and ones that took into account the position of FDP visual field loss.ResultsIf an FDP field was considered abnormal only when either a temporal wedge, an arcuate or a nasal step defect was present, the presence of a nasal step yielded the most accurate results with the least false positives (κ coefficient=0.76) and with only minimal increase in false negatives, compared with a conventional FDP protocol (κ coefficient=0.70).ConclusionsAlthough, not statistically significant in this case, our results suggested a trend that a diagnostic protocol which considers nasal step FDP field loss significant may have a greater degree of accuracy when compared with conventional protocols and may facilitate interpretation in a clinical setting.

    loading  Loading Related Articles