4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Diagnostic capabilities of frequency-doubling technology, scanning laser polarimetry, and nerve fiber layer photographs to distinguish glaucomatous damage

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 131, Issue 2, Pages 188-197

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9394(00)00644-9

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. PHS HHS [01765] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: To investigate the ability of three diagnostic tests: frequency-doubling technology (FDT), scanning laser polarimetry (GDx), and nerve fiber layer (NFL) photographs to distinguish normal from glaucomatous eyes. METHODS: Data were obtained in a cross-sectional, hospital clinic-based study, including one eye from each of 253 persons older than 40 years (68 normal, 94 glaucoma suspects and 91 glaucoma patients), We performed a comprehensive ocular examination, as well as static automated perimetry (Humphrey 24-2), screening FDT, GDx, optic nerve stereoscopic photographs and high-contrast Nn photographs. RESULTS: The following were significantly different for glaucomatous patients compared with suspects and normals: mean values of mean deviation (MD, Humphrey 24-2) and corrected pattern standard deviation (CPSD), 11 GDx indices, mean FDT testing time and missed points, and Nn graded defects (ANOVA, Mantel-Haenszel test; p = 0.0001). Using Humphrey 24-2 test results and clinical assessment as the defining features of glaucoma, we found that the optimal mix of sensitivity and specificity values were 84% and 100% for FDT (presence of any defect); 62% and 96% for GDx (The Number, cut-off value of 27); and, 95% and 82% for NFL photographs (presence of any abnormality). FDT testing took the least time to be administered. CONCLUSIONS: The FDT had the best diagnostic performance. Neural network analysis of GDx data outperformed other elements of its software. (Am J Ophthalmol 2001;131:188-197. (C) 2001 by Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available