The repeatability of mean defect with size III and size V standard automated perimetry.

PURPOSE The mean defect (MD) of the visual field is a global statistical index used to monitor overall visual field change over time. Our goal was to investigate the relationship of MD and its variability for two clinically used strategies (Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm [SITA] standard size III and full threshold size V) in glaucoma patients and controls. METHODS We tested one eye, at random, for 46 glaucoma patients and 28 ocularly healthy subjects with Humphrey program 24-2 SITA standard for size III and full threshold for size V each five times over a 5-week period. The standard deviation of MD was regressed against the MD for the five repeated tests, and quantile regression was used to show the relationship of variability and MD. A Wilcoxon test was used to compare the standard deviations of the two testing methods following quantile regression. RESULTS Both types of regression analysis showed increasing variability with increasing visual field damage. Quantile regression showed modestly smaller MD confidence limits. There was a 15% decrease in SD with size V in glaucoma patients (P = 0.10) and a 12% decrease in ocularly healthy subjects (P = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS The repeatability of size V MD appears to be slightly better than size III SITA testing. When using MD to determine visual field progression, a change of 1.5 to 4 decibels (dB) is needed to be outside the normal 95% confidence limits, depending on the size of the stimulus and the amount of visual field damage.

[1]  M. Nicolela,et al.  Properties of the statpac visual field index. , 2011, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[2]  K. Woodward,et al.  The effective dynamic ranges of standard automated perimetry sizes III and V and motion and matrix perimetry. , 2010, Archives of ophthalmology.

[3]  Chris A. Johnson,et al.  Is There Evidence for Continued Learning Over Multiple Years in Perimetry? , 2008, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[4]  Chris A. Johnson,et al.  Total deviation probability plots for stimulus size v perimetry: a comparison with size III stimuli. , 2008, Archives of ophthalmology.

[5]  G. Menon,et al.  Mean deviation fluctuation in eyes with stable Humphrey 24-2 visual fields , 2007, Eye.

[6]  Paul H Artes,et al.  Visual field progression in glaucoma: total versus pattern deviation analyses. , 2005, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[7]  Josef Flammer,et al.  The concept of visual field indices , 2005, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.

[8]  F. Fankhauser,et al.  The effects of weighting the “mean defect” visual field index according to threshold variability in the central and midperipheral visual field , 2004, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.

[9]  Yuko Ohno,et al.  Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from Full Threshold, SITA Standard, and SITA Fast strategies. , 2002, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[10]  M. Wall,et al.  Asymmetric papilledema in idiopathic intracranial hypertension: prospective interocular comparison of sensory visual function. , 1998, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[11]  B. Bengtsson,et al.  The effect of perimetric experience in patients with glaucoma. , 1996, Archives of ophthalmology.

[12]  J M Wild,et al.  Long‐term follow‐up of baseline learning and fatigue effects in the automated perimetry of glaucoma and ocular hypertensive patients , 1991, Acta ophthalmologica.

[13]  A Heijl,et al.  A clinical study of perimetric probability maps. , 1989, Archives of ophthalmology.

[14]  G. Lindgren,et al.  The effect of perimetric experience in normal subjects. , 1989, Archives of ophthalmology.

[15]  G. Lindgren,et al.  Normal variability of static perimetric threshold values across the central visual field. , 1987, Archives of ophthalmology.