Suppr超能文献

使用多重相关性和线性回归进行视野评估有用吗?德尔菲视野计评估。

Is visual field evaluation using multiple correlations and linear regressions useful? An evaluation of Delphi perimetry.

作者信息

Wishart P K, Wardrop D R, Kosmin A S

机构信息

Glaucoma Clinic, St. Paul's Eye Unit, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, UK.

出版信息

Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1998 Jul;236(7):493-500. doi: 10.1007/s004170050111.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Delphi perimetry is a method of visual field examination which produces a statistical estimation of the visual field by testing only four critical points of the central visual field. This study was performed to evaluate this technique for the detection of glaucomatous field loss.

METHOD

Patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension underwent Delphi perimetry and Humphrey visual field analysis (HVFA) program 24-2. The visual field results of both examination were compared.

RESULTS

Of 262 eyes from 199 patients, 120 eyes showed glaucomatous defects by HVFA and 142 were normal. Delphi perimetry showed abnormal visual fields in 107 eyes, 13 of which were false-positive results as Humphrey visual fields were normal. Delphi classified 155 fields as normal, of which 26 were false negatives as Humphrey visual fields showed glaucomatous defects. Therefore, the sensitivity of Delphi perimetry for the detection of glaucomatous visual field defect was 78% and the specificity was 91%. In the 26 false-negative eyes, the most common defect missed was an isolated paracentral scotoma or an early nasal step. Furthermore, 27 of the 94 glaucomatous eyes classified as abnormal by Delphi had defects estimated by Delphi perimetry that corresponded poorly to the field loss demonstrated by Humphrey visual field analysis. Therefore, qualitative sensitivity and specificity of Delphi perimetry for producing an accurate representation of the location, extent and defect depth of glaucomatous visual field loss would be 48.8% and 72% respectively.

CONCLUSION

In this study Delphi perimetry failed to give an accurate statistical estimation of the visual field in an unacceptably high number of cases; therefore, it cannot be recommended for clinical use.

摘要

背景

德尔菲视野检查法是一种视野检查方法,通过仅测试中心视野的四个关键点来对视野进行统计学估计。本研究旨在评估该技术在检测青光眼性视野缺损方面的效果。

方法

青光眼和高眼压症患者接受了德尔菲视野检查法和汉弗莱视野分析仪(HVFA)24-2程序检查。比较了两种检查的视野结果。

结果

199例患者的262只眼中,120只眼经HVFA显示有青光眼性缺损,142只眼正常。德尔菲视野检查法显示107只眼视野异常,其中13只眼为假阳性结果,因为汉弗莱视野正常。德尔菲法将155只眼的视野分类为正常,其中26只眼为假阴性,因为汉弗莱视野显示有青光眼性缺损。因此,德尔菲视野检查法检测青光眼性视野缺损的敏感性为78%,特异性为91%。在26只假阴性眼中,最常见漏诊的缺损是孤立的旁中心暗点或早期鼻侧阶梯状缺损。此外,在德尔菲法分类为异常的94只青光眼中,有27只眼经德尔菲视野检查法估计的缺损与汉弗莱视野分析显示的视野缺损情况不太相符。因此,德尔菲视野检查法准确呈现青光眼性视野缺损的位置、范围和缺损深度的定性敏感性和特异性分别为48.8%和72%。

结论

在本研究中,德尔菲视野检查法在高得令人无法接受的病例数中未能给出准确的视野统计学估计;因此,不推荐临床使用。

相似文献

1
Is visual field evaluation using multiple correlations and linear regressions useful? An evaluation of Delphi perimetry.
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1998 Jul;236(7):493-500. doi: 10.1007/s004170050111.
3
Multifocal objective perimetry in the detection of glaucomatous field loss.
Am J Ophthalmol. 2002 Jan;133(1):29-39. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9394(01)01294-6.
4
Blue-on-yellow perimetry can predict the development of glaucomatous visual field loss.
Arch Ophthalmol. 1993 May;111(5):645-50. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1993.01090050079034.
5
Testing for glaucoma with frequency-doubling perimetry in normals, ocular hypertensives, and glaucoma patients.
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2002 Aug;240(8):658-65. doi: 10.1007/s00417-002-0512-9. Epub 2002 Jul 5.
6
Comparison between indices of Humphrey matrix and Humphrey perimetry in early glaucoma patients and normal subjects.
Ann Ophthalmol (Skokie). 2007 Winter;39(4):318-20. doi: 10.1007/s12009-007-9019-7.
7
Blue-on-yellow perimetry using an Armaly glaucoma screening program.
Ophthalmologica. 1999;213(2):71-5. doi: 10.1159/000027398.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验