Aim: Matrix perimetry uses frequency-doubling technology (FDT) incorporated into a 5° test target. This permits testing of the same number of locations within a defined visual field as standard automated perimetry (SAP) and may improve performance compared with original FDT perimetry. This study investigates the performance of Humphrey Matrix perimetry for detecting glaucomatous visual-field loss.
Design: Prospective case control study.
Methods: We recruited 115 participants with glaucomatous visual-field loss and 33 normal controls from an urban glaucoma practice. Each participant performed SITA 24-2 SAP then threshold 24-2 Matrix perimetry. Severity of visual-field loss was defined using SAP mean deviation (MD) as early (MD >−6 dB), moderate (MD −6 to −12 dB) or advanced (MD <−12 dB). The sensitivity and specificity of Humphrey Matrix perimetry were calculated for different automated indices.
Results: The matrix perimetry sensitivity and specificity were up to 100% for moderate and advanced glaucomatous visual-field loss. A receiver operator characteristic area under the curve (AUC) analysis revealed MD to be slightly better than pattern standard deviation (PSD) for defining moderate (AUC: MD 0.997; PSD 0.987) and advanced defects (AUC: MD 1.000; PSD 0.987). Matrix was less sensitive (up to 87.3%) for detecting early glaucomatous visual-field loss compared with SITA 24-2 SAP (AUC: PSD 0.948; MD 0.910).
Conclusions: Matrix perimetry is excellent for detection of moderate to advanced glaucomatous visual-field loss but may miss some early defects. It may be well suited to following progression of early to moderate field loss because of a smaller target size compared with original FDT perimetry.
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.
Competing interests: None.
Ethics approval: Ethics approval was provided by South East Sydney Area Health Service human research ethics committee.
Patient consent: Obtained.