Katz J, Tielsch J M, Quigley H A, Javitt J, Witt K, Sommer A
Dana Center for Preventive Ophthalmology, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21287-9019.
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1993 Nov;34(12):3271-7.
To evaluate automated suprathreshold perimetric screening for glaucoma in a population-based survey of ocular disorders in east Baltimore, Maryland.
A population-based sample of persons > or = 40 years of age residing in 16 clusters was selected for an ocular screening examination that included automated suprathreshold testing with the Full Field 120 program of the Humphrey Field Analyzer. Subjects who failed the test underwent manual testing to confirm the defect. Subjects were referred for definitive examination by an ophthalmologist if they had an abnormal field, visual acuity worse than 20/30, intraocular pressure > 21 mm Hg, optic disc damage, a history of glaucoma, or shallow angles. The sensitivity and specificity of the automated visual field testing for identifying glaucoma was estimated and compared with other methods to screen for glaucoma.
Of 5,341 subjects > or = 40 years of age who underwent a screening eye examination at neighborhood centers, 4,735 (89%) completed the automated field test. The median test time was 7.25 minutes per eye. Screening test results were abnormal in one or both eyes in 1,234 (26%) of the subjects. Kinetic perimetry was performed on 95% of these subjects, and defects were confirmed for 448 (36%) of them. Hence, 9.5% of the 4,735 subjects who completed the automated test were referred for definitive examination because the defect on automated perimetry was confirmed on manual testing. For a specificity of 90%, the sensitivity of the screening visual field test to detect glaucoma was 52% for 17 or more relative or absolute defects, higher than that of intraocular pressure at 39% for a cut-off of 20.5 mm Hg, vertical cup-to-disc ratio at 45% for a cut-off of 0.53, narrowest remaining rim width at 42% for a cut-off of 0.16, and was comparable to a combination of these and other nonfield parameters.
Suprathreshold testing performed better than nonperimetry-based screening tests for glaucoma. However, a number of logistical weaknesses of this visual field screening method were identified.
在马里兰州巴尔的摩东部进行的一项基于人群的眼部疾病调查中,评估自动超阈值视野检查用于青光眼筛查的效果。
从居住在16个区域的40岁及以上人群中选取一个基于人群的样本,进行眼部筛查检查,其中包括使用Humphrey视野分析仪的全视野120程序进行自动超阈值测试。测试未通过的受试者接受手动测试以确认缺陷。如果受试者视野异常、视力低于20/30、眼压高于21 mmHg、视盘损伤、有青光眼病史或房角狭窄,则会被转介给眼科医生进行确诊检查。估计自动视野测试用于识别青光眼的敏感性和特异性,并与其他青光眼筛查方法进行比较。
在社区中心接受眼部筛查检查的5341名40岁及以上受试者中,4735名(89%)完成了自动视野测试。每只眼睛的测试中位时间为7.25分钟。1234名(26%)受试者的一只或两只眼睛的筛查测试结果异常。这些受试者中的95%进行了动态视野检查,其中448名(36%)的缺陷得到确认。因此,在完成自动测试的4735名受试者中,有9.5%因自动视野检查中的缺陷在手动测试中得到确认而被转介进行确诊检查。对于90%的特异性,筛查视野测试检测青光眼的敏感性在有17个或更多相对或绝对缺陷时为52%,高于眼压在截断值为20.5 mmHg时的39%、垂直杯盘比在截断值为0.53时的45%、最窄剩余视盘边缘宽度在截断值为0.16时的42%,并且与这些及其他非视野参数的组合相当。
超阈值测试在青光眼筛查方面比基于非视野检查的筛查测试表现更好。然而,该视野筛查方法存在一些后勤方面的不足。