Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 9/2012

01.09.2012 | Glaucoma

Comparison of global indices and test duration between two visual field analyzers: Octopus 300 and Topcon SBP-3000

verfasst von: Jose Javier Garcia-Medina, Manuel Garcia-Medina, Vicente Zanon-Moreno, Carlos Garcia-Maturana, Francisco Javier Cruz-Espinosa, Maria Dolores Pinazo-Duran

Erschienen in: Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology | Ausgabe 9/2012

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the global indices and test duration as measured by Octopus 300 and Topcon SBP-3000 perimeters. To our knowledge, this is the first study performed in this way.

Methods

Eighty eyes of 40 glaucomatous and ocular hypertensive patients with previous perimetric experience had visual field tests with Octopus 300 (TOP strategy) and TOPCON SBP-3000. All pairs of tests were performed randomly on separate days, but within 1 month of each other. Taking into account reliability factors of both perimetric examinations, 54 eyes of thirty patients were eligible. Only one eye from each patient was considered. Mean sensitivity (MS), mean defect (MD), loss of variance (sLV-Octopus- and LV -Topcon-) and test duration times were considered.

Results

A significant difference was found between the global indices and duration times of the Octopus and the Topcon perimeters (p < 0.05; Wilcoxon test). Moderate degrees of correlation were obtained for MS (Spearman´s rho = 0.635; p < 0.001) and MD (Spearman´s rho = 0.592; p = 0.001) measurements. There was no correlation between sLV and LV (Spearman´s rho = 0.181; p = 0.337). Agreements between pairs of global indices were low as measured by concordance correlation coefficient.

Conclusion

Global indices measured by the Octopus and Topcon perimeters are significantly different, so direct comparison of the measured values is not reliable. Because of the poor association and agreement between values obtained by these two perimeters, indirect comparison is also inadvisable.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Zeyen T, Roche M, Brigatti L, Caprioli J (1995) Formulas for conversion between Octopusand Humphrey threshold values and indices. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 233:627–634PubMedCrossRef Zeyen T, Roche M, Brigatti L, Caprioli J (1995) Formulas for conversion between Octopusand Humphrey threshold values and indices. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 233:627–634PubMedCrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Papp A, Kis K, Németh J (2001) Conversion formulas between automated-perimetry indexes as measured by two different types of instrument. Ophthalmologica 215:87–90PubMedCrossRef Papp A, Kis K, Németh J (2001) Conversion formulas between automated-perimetry indexes as measured by two different types of instrument. Ophthalmologica 215:87–90PubMedCrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat King AJ, Taguri A, Wadood AC, Azuara-Blanco A (2002) Comparison of two fast strategies, SITA Fast and TOP, for the assessment of visual fields in glaucoma patients. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 240:481–487PubMedCrossRef King AJ, Taguri A, Wadood AC, Azuara-Blanco A (2002) Comparison of two fast strategies, SITA Fast and TOP, for the assessment of visual fields in glaucoma patients. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 240:481–487PubMedCrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Landers J, Sharma A, Goldberg I, Graham S (2007) A comparison of global indices between the Medmont Automated Perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer. Br J Ophthalmol 91:1285–1287PubMedCrossRef Landers J, Sharma A, Goldberg I, Graham S (2007) A comparison of global indices between the Medmont Automated Perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer. Br J Ophthalmol 91:1285–1287PubMedCrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Lin LI (1989) A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 45:255–68PubMedCrossRef Lin LI (1989) A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 45:255–68PubMedCrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Lin LI (2000) A note on the concordance correlation coefficient. Biometrics 56:324–325CrossRef Lin LI (2000) A note on the concordance correlation coefficient. Biometrics 56:324–325CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J (1989) The effect of perimetric experience in normal subjects. Arch Ophthalmol 107:81–86PubMedCrossRef Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J (1989) The effect of perimetric experience in normal subjects. Arch Ophthalmol 107:81–86PubMedCrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Heijl A, Bengtsson B (1996) The effect of perimetric experience in patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 114:19–22PubMedCrossRef Heijl A, Bengtsson B (1996) The effect of perimetric experience in patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 114:19–22PubMedCrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Heijl A, Drance SM (1983) Changes in differential threshold in patients with glaucoma during prolonged perimetry. Br J Ophthalmol 67:512–516PubMedCrossRef Heijl A, Drance SM (1983) Changes in differential threshold in patients with glaucoma during prolonged perimetry. Br J Ophthalmol 67:512–516PubMedCrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Gonzalez de la Rosa M, Pareja A (1997) Influence of the “fatigue effect” on the mean deviation measurement in perimetry. Eur J Ophthalmol 7:29–34PubMed Gonzalez de la Rosa M, Pareja A (1997) Influence of the “fatigue effect” on the mean deviation measurement in perimetry. Eur J Ophthalmol 7:29–34PubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Flanagan JG, Wild JM, Trope GE (1993) Evaluation of FASTPAC, a new strategy for threshold estimation with the Humphrey Field Analyser, in a glaucomatous population. Ophthalmology 100:949–954PubMed Flanagan JG, Wild JM, Trope GE (1993) Evaluation of FASTPAC, a new strategy for threshold estimation with the Humphrey Field Analyser, in a glaucomatous population. Ophthalmology 100:949–954PubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Nordmann JP, Denis P, Nguer Y, Mouton-Chopin D, Saraux H (1994) Static threshold visual field in glaucoma with the Fastpac algorithm of the Humphrey Field Analyser. Eur J Ophthalmol 4:105–110PubMed Nordmann JP, Denis P, Nguer Y, Mouton-Chopin D, Saraux H (1994) Static threshold visual field in glaucoma with the Fastpac algorithm of the Humphrey Field Analyser. Eur J Ophthalmol 4:105–110PubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat O’Brien C, Poinoosawmy S, Wu J, Hitchings R l (1994) Evaluation of the Humphrey FASTPAC threshold program in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 78:516–519PubMedCrossRef O’Brien C, Poinoosawmy S, Wu J, Hitchings R l (1994) Evaluation of the Humphrey FASTPAC threshold program in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 78:516–519PubMedCrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Schaumberger M, Schafer B, Lachenmayr BJ (1995) Glaucomatous visual fields. FASTPAC versus full threshold strategy of the Humphrey Field Analyser. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 36:1390–7PubMed Schaumberger M, Schafer B, Lachenmayr BJ (1995) Glaucomatous visual fields. FASTPAC versus full threshold strategy of the Humphrey Field Analyser. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 36:1390–7PubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Comparison of global indices and test duration between two visual field analyzers: Octopus 300 and Topcon SBP-3000
verfasst von
Jose Javier Garcia-Medina
Manuel Garcia-Medina
Vicente Zanon-Moreno
Carlos Garcia-Maturana
Francisco Javier Cruz-Espinosa
Maria Dolores Pinazo-Duran
Publikationsdatum
01.09.2012
Verlag
Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology / Ausgabe 9/2012
Print ISSN: 0721-832X
Elektronische ISSN: 1435-702X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-012-1929-4

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 9/2012

Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 9/2012 Zur Ausgabe

Neu im Fachgebiet Augenheilkunde

Update Augenheilkunde

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.