Purpose The 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.
Methods One 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.
Results Regardless of the criteria, HFA SAP with SITA-Standard testing detected visual field progression at a higher rate than the FDT2 overall (P<0.001).
Conclusion HFA SAP identifies glaucomatous visual field progression at a rate at least as high if not higher than FDT2.
- visual testing
- glaucoma progression
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors All authors made substantial contributions to the design, analysis and writing of this manuscript.
Funding This study was supported by a VA Merit Review Grant RX000140-03 and by an unrestricted grant to the Department of Ophthalmology from Research to Prevent Blindness, New York, New York, USA.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Obtained.
Ethics approval The visual testing protocol was approved by the University of Iowa Institutional Review Board.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.