Cargando…

Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy between Octopus 900 and Goldmann Kinetic Visual Fields

Purpose. To determine diagnostic accuracy of kinetic visual field assessment by Octopus 900 perimetry compared with Goldmann perimetry. Methods. Prospective cross section evaluation of 40 control subjects with full visual fields and 50 patients with known visual field loss. Comparison of test durati...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rowe, Fiona J., Rowlands, Alison
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3920974/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24587983
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/214829
_version_ 1782303254252617728
author Rowe, Fiona J.
Rowlands, Alison
author_facet Rowe, Fiona J.
Rowlands, Alison
author_sort Rowe, Fiona J.
collection PubMed
description Purpose. To determine diagnostic accuracy of kinetic visual field assessment by Octopus 900 perimetry compared with Goldmann perimetry. Methods. Prospective cross section evaluation of 40 control subjects with full visual fields and 50 patients with known visual field loss. Comparison of test duration and area measurement of isopters for Octopus 3, 5, and 10°/sec stimulus speeds. Comparison of test duration and type of visual field classification for Octopus versus Goldmann perimetry. Results were independently graded for presence/absence of field defect and for type and location of defect. Statistical evaluation comprised of ANOVA and paired t test for evaluation of parametric data with Bonferroni adjustment. Bland Altman and Kappa tests were used for measurement of agreement between data. Results. Octopus 5°/sec perimetry had comparable test duration to Goldmann perimetry. Octopus perimetry reliably detected type and location of visual field loss with visual fields matched to Goldmann results in 88.8% of results (K = 0.775). Conclusions. Kinetic perimetry requires individual tailoring to ensure accuracy. Octopus perimetry was reproducible for presence/absence of visual field defect. Our screening protocol when using Octopus perimetry is 5°/sec for determining boundaries of peripheral isopters and 3°/sec for blind spot mapping with further evaluation of area of field loss for defect depth and size.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3920974
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Hindawi Publishing Corporation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-39209742014-03-02 Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy between Octopus 900 and Goldmann Kinetic Visual Fields Rowe, Fiona J. Rowlands, Alison Biomed Res Int Research Article Purpose. To determine diagnostic accuracy of kinetic visual field assessment by Octopus 900 perimetry compared with Goldmann perimetry. Methods. Prospective cross section evaluation of 40 control subjects with full visual fields and 50 patients with known visual field loss. Comparison of test duration and area measurement of isopters for Octopus 3, 5, and 10°/sec stimulus speeds. Comparison of test duration and type of visual field classification for Octopus versus Goldmann perimetry. Results were independently graded for presence/absence of field defect and for type and location of defect. Statistical evaluation comprised of ANOVA and paired t test for evaluation of parametric data with Bonferroni adjustment. Bland Altman and Kappa tests were used for measurement of agreement between data. Results. Octopus 5°/sec perimetry had comparable test duration to Goldmann perimetry. Octopus perimetry reliably detected type and location of visual field loss with visual fields matched to Goldmann results in 88.8% of results (K = 0.775). Conclusions. Kinetic perimetry requires individual tailoring to ensure accuracy. Octopus perimetry was reproducible for presence/absence of visual field defect. Our screening protocol when using Octopus perimetry is 5°/sec for determining boundaries of peripheral isopters and 3°/sec for blind spot mapping with further evaluation of area of field loss for defect depth and size. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2014 2014-01-23 /pmc/articles/PMC3920974/ /pubmed/24587983 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/214829 Text en Copyright © 2014 F. J. Rowe and A. Rowlands. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Rowe, Fiona J.
Rowlands, Alison
Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy between Octopus 900 and Goldmann Kinetic Visual Fields
title Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy between Octopus 900 and Goldmann Kinetic Visual Fields
title_full Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy between Octopus 900 and Goldmann Kinetic Visual Fields
title_fullStr Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy between Octopus 900 and Goldmann Kinetic Visual Fields
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy between Octopus 900 and Goldmann Kinetic Visual Fields
title_short Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy between Octopus 900 and Goldmann Kinetic Visual Fields
title_sort comparison of diagnostic accuracy between octopus 900 and goldmann kinetic visual fields
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3920974/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24587983
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/214829
work_keys_str_mv AT rowefionaj comparisonofdiagnosticaccuracybetweenoctopus900andgoldmannkineticvisualfields
AT rowlandsalison comparisonofdiagnosticaccuracybetweenoctopus900andgoldmannkineticvisualfields