Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How often do patients need visual field tests?

  • Clinical Investigation
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

• Background: This study was undertaken to determine whether the interval between visual field tests affects the ability to detect progres sive glaucomatous field loss. • Methods: One hundred and nineteen retinal locations which were deteriorating significantly by ≥1 dB/year (untreated normal tension glaucoma patients: 6 eyes) were studied. Analysis was repeated using ‘thinned’ visual field tests: one test per year instead of the complete three per year over a period of 4 years. • Results: The ‘thinned’ tests identified only 45.4% of the deteriorating points over the 4-year period. Furthermore, there was a mean delay of 1.10 years in detection (P<0.01). • Conclusions: Less frequent visual field testing detects fewer progressing locations and detects them later.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bebie H, Frankhauser F (1982) Delta manual. Interzeag AG, Schlieren

    Google Scholar 

  2. Boeglin RJ, Caprioli J, Zulauf M (1992) Long-term fluctuation of the visual field in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 113:396–400

    Google Scholar 

  3. Crick RP, Newson RB, Shipley MJ, Blackmore H, Bulpitt CJ (1990) The progress of the visual field in chronic simple glaucoma and ocular hypertension treated topically with pilocarpine or with timolol. Eye 4:563–571

    Google Scholar 

  4. Dunbar H-H Jr (1992) Does computerised perimetry offer practical advances in choice of therapy in the glaucoma patient? Eye 6:43–46

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fitzke FW, McNaught AI (1994) The diagnosis of visual field progression in glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 5:110–115

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA, Poinoosawmy D, McNaught AI, Crabb DP (1996) Analysis of visual field progression in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 80:40–48

    Google Scholar 

  7. Flammer J (1986) The concept of visual field indices. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 224:389–392

    Google Scholar 

  8. Flammer J, Drance SM, Zulauf M (1984) Differential light threshold. Short- and long-term fluctuation in patients with glaucoma, normal controls, and patients with suspected glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 102:704–706

    Google Scholar 

  9. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Lindgren A et al. (1991) Extended empirical statistical package for evaluation of single and multiple fields in glaucoma: Statpac 2. In: Mills RP, Heijl A (eds) Perimetry update 1990/1991. Kugler & Ghedini, Amsterdam, pp 303–315

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hitchings RA (1993) Psychophysical testing in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 77:471–472

    Google Scholar 

  11. Holmin C, Krakau CE (1982) Regression analysis of the central visual field in chronic glaucoma cases. A follow-up study using automatic perimetry. Acta Ophthalmol Copenh 60:267–274

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hoskins HD, Jensvold N, Zaretsky M, Hetherington J (1989) Rate of progression of discrete areas of the visual field. In: Heijl A (ed) Perimetry update 1988/1989. Kugler & Ghedini, Amsterdam, pp 173–176

    Google Scholar 

  13. Johnson CA (1993) Modern developments in clinical perimetry. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 4(11):7–13

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lachenmayr BJ, Vivell PM (1993) Perimetry and its clinical correlations. Thieme, New York

    Google Scholar 

  15. McNaught AI, Crabb DP, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA (1995) Modelling series of visual vields to detect progression in normal tension glaucoma. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol (233):750–755

  16. Mikelberg FS (1992) Do computerised visual fields and automated optic disc analysis assist in the choice of therapy in glaucoma? Eye 6:47–49

    Google Scholar 

  17. Noureddin BN, Boinoosawmy D, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA (1991) Regression analysis of visual field progression in low tension glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 75:493–495

    Google Scholar 

  18. O'Brien C, Schwartz B (1990) The visual field in chronic open angle glaucoma: the rate of change in different regions of the field. Eye 4:557–562

    Google Scholar 

  19. O'Brien C, Schwartz B (1993) Point by point linear regression analysis of automated visual fields in primary openangle glaucoma. In: Mills RP (ed) Perimetry update 1992/1993. Kugler & Ghedini, Amsterdam, pp 149–152

    Google Scholar 

  20. O'Brien C, Schwartz B, Takamoto T, Wu DC (1991) Intraocular pressure and the rate of visual field loss in chronic open-angle glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 111:491–500

    Google Scholar 

  21. Poinoosawmy D, Wu J, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA (1993) Discrimination between progression and non-progression visual field loss in low tension glaucoma using MDT. In: Mills RP (ed) Perimetry update 1992/1993. Kugler & Ghedini, Amsterdam, pp 109–114

    Google Scholar 

  22. Vogel R, Crick RP, Mills KB, Reynolds PM, Sass W, Clineschmidt CM, Tipping R (1992) Effect of timolol versus pilocarpine on visual field progression in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology 99:1505–1511.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Weber J, Diestelhorst M (1992) Perimetric follow-up in glaucoma with a reduced set of test points. German J Ophthalmol 1:409–414

    Google Scholar 

  24. Weber J, Koll W, Krieglstein GK (1993) Intraocular pressure and visual field decay in chronic glaucoma. German J Ophthalmol 2(3):165–169

    Google Scholar 

  25. Wegner A, Ugi I, Hofman A (1993) A long-term visual field evaluation of glaucoma patients treated topically with timolol or carteolol. In: Mills RP (ed) Perimetry update 1992/1993. Kugler & Ghedini, Amsterdam, pp 143–145

    Google Scholar 

  26. Werner EB, Adelson A, Krupin T (1988) Effect of patient experience on the results of automated perimetry in clinically stable glaucoma patients. Ophthalmology 95:764–767

    Google Scholar 

  27. Werner EB, Krupin T, Adelson A, Feitl ME (1990) Effect of patient experience on the results of automated perimetry in glaucoma suspect patients. Ophthalmology 97:44–48

    Google Scholar 

  28. Wu D, Schwartz B, Nagin P (1987) Trend analysis of automated visual fields. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser 49:175–189

    Google Scholar 

  29. Zulauf M, Caprioli J (1992) What constitutes progression of visual field defects? Semin Ophthalmol 7:130–146

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Ophthalmology, 11-43 Bath Street, ECIV 9EL, London, UK

    Ananth C. Viswanathan & Fred W. Fitzke

  2. Moorfields Eye Hospital, City Road, EC1V 2PD, London, UK

    Roger A. Hitchings

Authors
  1. Ananth C. Viswanathan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roger A. Hitchings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fred W. Fitzke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

The authors have no proprietary interest in any of the materials used in this study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Viswanathan, A.C., Hitchings, R.A. & Fitzke, F.W. How often do patients need visual field tests?. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 235, 563–568 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00947085

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00947085

Keywords

Search

Navigation