Cassels Nicola K, Wild John M, Margrain Tom H, Blyth Chris, Chong Victor, Acton Jennifer H
College of Biological and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK.
Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2019 Dec 31;8(6):48. doi: 10.1167/tvst.8.6.48. eCollection 2019 Nov.
The "traffic light" color designation of differential light sensitivity used in a number of microperimeters does not encompass the conventional Total and Pattern Deviation probability analyses adopted by standard automated perimetry. We determined whether the color designation is indicative of abnormality as represented by the "gold standard" Pattern Deviation probability analysis.
Total and Pattern Deviation probability levels, using two different methods, were derived at each of 40 stimulus locations, within 7° eccentricity, from 66 ocular healthy individuals (66 eyes) who had undergone microperimetry with the Macular Integrity Assessment microperimeter. The probability levels were applied to the corresponding fields from each of 45 individuals (45 eyes) with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and evaluated in relation to the color designation.
Sensitivities designated in orange encompassed the entire range of Pattern Deviation probability levels (from normal to ≤ 1%). Those designated in green were mostly normal; those in red/black generally corresponded to the ≤1% probability level.
The green and the red/black designations are generally indicative of normal and abnormal probability values, respectively. The orange designation encompassed all probability outcomes and should not be relied upon for visual field interpretation. The evidence base indicates replacement of the color designation of sensitivity in AMD by Total Deviation and Pattern Deviation analyses.
The use of Total and Pattern Deviation probability analyses is not universal in all microperimeters, and the derivation of these values indicates that color coding will lead to errors in evaluating visual field loss.
许多微视野计中使用的不同光敏感度的“交通信号灯”颜色标识并不涵盖标准自动视野计所采用的传统全偏差和模式偏差概率分析。我们确定这种颜色标识是否如“金标准”模式偏差概率分析所表示的那样指示异常。
从66名接受黄斑完整性评估微视野计检查的眼部健康个体（66只眼）中，在7°偏心度范围内的40个刺激位置，使用两种不同方法得出全偏差和模式偏差概率水平。将这些概率水平应用于45名年龄相关性黄斑变性（AMD）个体（45只眼）的相应视野，并根据颜色标识进行评估。
橙色标识的敏感度涵盖了模式偏差概率水平的整个范围（从正常到≤1%）。绿色标识的大多为正常；红色/黑色标识的通常对应于≤1%的概率水平。
绿色和红色/黑色标识通常分别指示正常和异常概率值。橙色标识涵盖了所有概率结果，不应依赖其进行视野解读。证据表明，在AMD中用全偏差和模式偏差分析取代敏感度的颜色标识。
全偏差和模式偏差概率分析在所有微视野计中的使用并不普遍，这些值的推导表明颜色编码会导致在评估视野缺损时出现错误。
