PURPOSE: To evaluate the predictive power of frequency doubling technology to distinguish glaucoma suspects from persons with glaucoma visual field loss. METHODS: A consecutive series of 76 subjects referred to a glaucoma service underwent perimetry in one eye with frequency doubling technology in a screening mode and Humphrey 24-2 threshold testing in random order, and had optic disk and clinical nerve fiber layer grading. RESULTS: All subjects performed perimetry with both instruments satisfactorily, with an average test time of 1.8 +/- 0.7 minutes per eye for the frequency doubling technology (instrument time). Of 33 eyes classified as abnormal by glaucoma hemifield test, 91% (30/33) were abnormal on frequency doubling technology (two or more abnormal locations of 17), whereas 94% (31/33) of glaucoma suspects with normal Humphrey fields had normal results with frequency doubling technology. Frequency doubling technology results were highly correlated with Humphrey mean deviation by linear regression (r2 = .74, P = .047) and with corrected pattern standard deviation probability value. A frequency doubling technology error score for each quadrant of the field was highly correlated with the number of severely abnormal points per quadrant in Humphrey threshold tests (r2 = .63, P = .034). There was close agreement between clinical examination of the optic disk and nerve fiber layer and frequency doubling technology results. Three-level quantification of abnormality in frequency doubling technology results did not add to diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSION: Frequency doubling technology testing shows promise as a screening method in glaucoma.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Harry A. Quigley (1998) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: