Chauhan B C, Mohandas R N, Whelan J H, McCormick T A
Department of Ophthalmology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Ophthalmology. 1993 Jul;100(7):1089-94. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(93)31534-4.
The purpose of this study is to compare reliability indices in conventional (Humphrey) and high-pass resolution (Ring) perimetry in healthy subjects followed prospectively at 6-month intervals.
Of the 146 healthy subjects (mean age, 50.24 years; range, 30-84 years) enrolled in the study, 102 have been tested twice and 71 three times. The authors compared the reliability indices, fixation losses, false-positive rate, and false-negative rate between the two techniques, both cross-sectionally and serially.
Fixation losses were slightly higher with high-pass resolution perimetry, whereas false-positive errors were higher with conventional perimetry. False-negative errors were uncommon with either technique. Of 319 fields, 30 (9.4%) conventional and 39 (12.2%) high-pass resolution perimetry fields were unreliable using the current suggested reliability criteria. Nearly all unreliable fields were due to high fixation errors. Using alternative criteria derived from baseline 95th percentile values, unreliable fields were attributed more equally to all three reliability parameters. In subjects tested three times, the reliability indices remained constant.
The results of this study showed that healthy subjects have comparable reliability indices when tested with conventional and high-pass resolution perimetry.
本研究旨在比较健康受试者在采用传统（Humphrey）视野检查法和高通分辨率（Ring）视野检查法时的可靠性指标，这些受试者每6个月进行一次前瞻性随访检查。
在参与本研究的146名健康受试者（平均年龄50.24岁；范围30 - 84岁）中，102人接受了两次检查，71人接受了三次检查。作者在横断面和序列分析中比较了两种技术之间的可靠性指标、固视丢失、假阳性率和假阴性率。
高通分辨率视野检查法的固视丢失略高，而传统视野检查法的假阳性错误更高。两种技术的假阴性错误都不常见。在319个视野中，按照当前建议的可靠性标准，30个（9.4%）传统视野检查法视野和39个（12.2%）高通分辨率视野检查法视野不可靠。几乎所有不可靠视野都是由于高固视误差导致的。使用从基线第95百分位数得出的替代标准，不可靠视野在所有三个可靠性参数上的归因更为均衡。在接受三次检查的受试者中，可靠性指标保持不变。
本研究结果表明，健康受试者在采用传统视野检查法和高通分辨率视野检查法时，具有相当的可靠性指标。
