IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0224711.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Humphrey Field Analyzer and imo visual field test results in patients with glaucoma and pseudo-fixation loss

Author

Listed:
  • Hiroyasu Goukon
  • Kazunori Hirasawa
  • Masayuki Kasahara
  • Kazuhiro Matsumura
  • Nobuyuki Shoji

Abstract

The aim of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate the results of a visual field (VF) test for patients with glaucoma and pseudo-fixation loss. These patients exhibit fixation loss (FL) rates >20% with the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA); however, actual fixation stabilizes when a head-mounted perimeter (imo) is used. This device is able to adjust the stimulus presentation point by tracking eye movements. We subjected 54 eyes of 54 patients with glaucoma and pseudo-FL to the HFA 30–2 or 24–2 Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm -Standard protocol. All patients also underwent the imo 30–2 or 24–2 Ambient Interactive Zipper Estimated Sequential Testing protocol after HFA measurement. We compared HFA and imo reliability indices [including false-positive (FP) responses, false-negative (FN) responses, and FL rate], global indices [including mean deviation (MD), visual field index (VFI), and pattern standard deviation (PSD)], and retinal sensitivity for each test point. There were no significant differences in MD, VFI, and PSD between HFA and imo, and these measures were strongly correlated (r > 0.96, p

Suggested Citation

  • Hiroyasu Goukon & Kazunori Hirasawa & Masayuki Kasahara & Kazuhiro Matsumura & Nobuyuki Shoji, 2019. "Comparison of Humphrey Field Analyzer and imo visual field test results in patients with glaucoma and pseudo-fixation loss," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-11, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0224711
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224711
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0224711
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0224711&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0224711?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0224711. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.