Diagnostic accuracy of the Matrix 24-2 and original N-30 frequency-doubling technology tests compared with standard automated perimetry.

PURPOSE To compare the diagnostic accuracy of the Matrix frequency-doubling technology (FDT) 24-2, first-generation FDT N-30 (FDT N-30), and standard automated perimetry (SAP) tests of visual function. METHODS One eye of each of 85 glaucoma patients and 81 healthy controls from the Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma Study was included. Evidence of glaucomatous optic neuropathy on stereophotographs was used to classify the eyes. Matrix FDT 24-2, first-generation FDT N-30, and SAP-SITA 24-2 tests were performed on all participants within 3 months. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated and used to determine sensitivity levels at 80% and 90% specificity for mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), number of total deviation (TD), and pattern deviation (PD) points triggered at less than 5% and 1%. The tests were compared using the best parameter for each test (that with the highest area under the ROC curve) and with the PSD. RESULTS The best parameters were MD for SAP (0.680), PSD for FDT N-30 (0.733), and number of TD less than 5% points for FDT 24-2 (0.774). Using the best parameter, the area under the ROC curve was significantly larger for FDT 24-2 than for SAP (P = 0.01). No statistically significant differences were observed between SAP and FDT N-30 (P = 0.21) and FDT N-30 and FDT 24-2 (P = 0.26). Similar results were obtained when the PSD was used to compare the tests, with the exception that the area under the ROC curve for the FDT N-30 test (0.733) was significantly larger than that of the SAP-SITA (0.641; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS The performance of the Matrix FDT 24-2 was similar to that of the first-generation FDT N-30. The Matrix FDT 24-2 test was consistently better than SAP at discriminating between healthy and glaucomatous eyes. Further studies are needed to evaluate the ability of the Matrix FDT 24-2 to monitor glaucoma progression.

[1]  Barry B. Lee,et al.  An examination of physiological mechanisms underlying the frequency-doubling illusion. , 2002, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[2]  R. George,et al.  Frequency Doubling Perimetry in Glaucoma , 2002, Journal of glaucoma.

[3]  Robert N Weinreb,et al.  Identifying glaucomatous vision loss with visual-function-specific perimetry in the diagnostic innovations in glaucoma study. , 2006, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[4]  F. Medeiros,et al.  A statistical approach to the evaluation of covariate effects on the receiver operating characteristic curves of diagnostic tests in glaucoma. , 2006, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[5]  D. H. Kelly.  Frequency Doubling in Visual Responses , 1966 .

[6]  E. DeLong,et al.  Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. , 1988, Biometrics.

[7]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[8]  Ted Maddess,et al.  Performance of nonlinear visual units in ocular hypertension and glaucoma , 1992 .

[9]  R P Mills,et al.  Screening for glaucoma with frequency-doubling technology and Damato campimetry. , 1999, Archives of ophthalmology.

[10]  A. James,et al.  Evidence for spatial aliasing effects in the Y-like cells of the magnocellular visual pathway , 1998, Vision Research.

[11]  Paolo Brusini,et al.  Enhanced Glaucoma Staging System (GSS 2) for Classifying Functional Damage in Glaucoma , 2006, Journal of glaucoma.

[12]  H. Hussin,et al.  Clinical evaluation of frequency doubling technology perimetry using the Humphrey Matrix 24-2 threshold strategy , 2005, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[13]  R. O. Schultz,et al.  Accuracy of glaucoma detection with frequency-doubling perimetry. , 2000, American journal of ophthalmology.

[14]  Chris A. Johnson,et al.  Characteristics of the normative database for the Humphrey matrix perimeter. , 2005, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[15]  Chris A. Johnson,et al.  Frequency-doubling technology perimetry. , 2003, Ophthalmology clinics of North America.

[16]  Chris A. Johnson,et al.  Performance of efficient test procedures for frequency-doubling technology perimetry in normal and glaucomatous eyes. , 2002, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[17]  H. Rootzén,et al.  A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry, SITA. , 2009, Acta ophthalmologica Scandinavica.

[18]  B C Chauhan,et al.  Test-retest variability of frequency-doubling perimetry and conventional perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal subjects. , 1999, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[19]  C. Johnson,et al.  Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss with frequency-doubling perimetry. , 1997, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[20]  P A Sample,et al.  Visual function-specific perimetry for indirect comparison of different ganglion cell populations in glaucoma. , 2000, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[21]  Paul H Artes,et al.  Threshold and variability properties of matrix frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma. , 2005, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[22]  Chris A. Johnson,et al.  Structure and function evaluation (SAFE): I. criteria for glaucomatous visual field loss using standard automated perimetry (SAP) and short wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP). , 2002, American journal of ophthalmology.

[23]  J. Caprioli,et al.  Frequency-doubling perimetry: comparison with standard automated perimetry to detect glaucoma. , 2007, American journal of ophthalmology.

[24]  Robert N Weinreb,et al.  Use of progressive glaucomatous optic disk change as the reference standard for evaluation of diagnostic tests in glaucoma. , 2005, American journal of ophthalmology.

[25]  Chris A. Johnson,et al.  Normal visual field test results following glaucomatous visual field end points in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. , 2005, Archives of ophthalmology.

[26]  Chris A. Johnson,et al.  Mechanisms isolated by frequency-doubling technology perimetry. , 2002, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[27]  Chris A. Johnson,et al.  Structure and function evaluation (SAFE): II. Comparison of optic disk and visual field characteristics. , 2003, American journal of ophthalmology.

[28]  G. Wollstein,et al.  Comparison of visual field defects using matrix perimetry and standard achromatic perimetry. , 2007, Ophthalmology.

[29]  D. Friedman,et al.  Diagnostic capabilities of frequency-doubling technology, scanning laser polarimetry, and nerve fiber layer photographs to distinguish glaucomatous damage. , 2001, American journal of ophthalmology.

[30]  F. Medeiros,et al.  Frequency doubling technology perimetry abnormalities as predictors of glaucomatous visual field loss. , 2004, American journal of ophthalmology.

[31]  M. L. Salvetat,et al.  Frequency Doubling Technology Perimetry With the Humphrey Matrix 30-2 Test , 2006, Journal of glaucoma.

[32]  A M McKendrick,et al.  Variability components of standard automated perimetry and frequency-doubling technology perimetry. , 2001, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[33]  R. Casson,et al.  Clinical comparison of frequency doubling technology perimetry and Humphrey perimetry , 2001, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[34]  C. Johnson.  Selective versus nonselective losses in glaucoma. , 1994, Journal of glaucoma.

[35]  C A Johnson,et al.  Frequency doubling technology perimetry using a 24--2 stimulus presentation pattern. , 1999, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.