Comparison of size modulation and conventional standard automated perimetry with the 24-2 test protocol in glaucoma patients

Moving Stimulus Perimetry: A New Functional Test for Glaucoma

Purpose

Static pointwise perimetric sensitivities of less than approximately 19 dB are unreliable in glaucoma owing to excessive variability. We propose using moving stimuli to increase detectability, decrease variability, and hence increase this dynamic range.

Methods

A moving stimulus was designed to travel parallel to the average nerve fiber bundle orientation at each location, and compared against an otherwise identical static stimulus. To assess dynamic range, psychometric functions were measured at 4 locations of each of 10 subjects. To assess clinically realistic test-retest variability, 34 locations of 94 subjects with glaucoma and glaucoma suspects were tested twice, 6 months apart. Pointwise sensitivity estimates were compared using generalized estimating equation regression models. The test-retest limits of agreement for each stimulus were assessed, adjusted for within-eye clustering.

Results

Using static stimuli, 9 of the 40 psychometric functions had less than a 90% maximum response probability, suggesting being beyond the dynamic range. Eight of those locations had asymptotic maximum of more than 90% with moving stimuli. Sensitivities were higher for moving stimuli (P < 0.001); the difference increased as sensitivity decreased (P < 0.001). Test-retest limits of agreement were narrower for moving stimuli (-6.35 to +6.48 dB) than static stimuli (-12.7 to +7.81 dB). Sixty-two percent of subjects preferred using moving stimuli versus 19% who preferred static stimuli.

Conclusions

Using a moving stimulus increases perimetric sensitivities in regions of glaucomatous loss. This extends the effective dynamic range, allowing reliable testing later into the disease. Results are more repeatable, and the test is preferred by most subjects.

Translational Relevance

Moving stimuli allow reliable testing in patients with more severe glaucoma than currently possible.

Diagnostic Ability and Repeatability of a New Supra-Threshold Glaucoma Screening Program in Standard Automated Perimetry

Purpose

We assess the diagnostic ability and repeatability of a new suprathreshold glaucoma screening test (GST) comprising 28 test points and a 1-of-3 sampling strategy at 95% of the normal limit for standard automated perimetry (SAP) in early to advanced glaucoma.

Methods

This prospective cross-sectional study included 96 eyes of patients with early, moderate, or advanced glaucoma and 37 eyes of normal controls. Participants were evaluated by the G-Dynamic threshold test once and the GST twice, in random order, using the Octopus 600 perimeter. The diagnostic ability of GST was assessed by comparison with the G-Dynamic threshold obtained by receiver operating characteristic analysis. Repeatability was assessed by κ statistics for agreement on glaucoma diagnosis and each test point.

Results

Although the G-Dynamic test exhibited significantly higher areas under the curve (AUC) than the GST_1st (P = 0.009) in early glaucoma, there were no significant differences in any other AUCs between the two methods. The κ values for repeatability of glaucoma diagnosis and each test point were 0.747 to 1.0 and 0.537 to 1.0, respectively. The duration of the GST in the control and early glaucoma groups was less than a minute, while that in the moderate and advanced glaucoma groups was within 1.5 minutes.

Conclusion

The diagnostic ability of the new suprathreshold GST for early to advanced glaucoma was high, with moderate to strong repeatability and short test duration.

Translational Relevance

There currently are no prominent suprathreshold screening strategies using SAP. The GST would be an effective clinical method for glaucoma screening.

Comparison of Size Modulation Standard Automated Perimetry and Conventional Standard Automated Perimetry with a 10-2 Test Program in Glaucoma Patients

PURPOSE

This prospective observational study compared the performance of size modulation standard automated perimetry with the Octopus 600 10-2 test program, with stimulus size modulation during testing, based on stimulus intensity and conventional standard automated perimetry, with that of the Humphrey 10-2 test program in glaucoma patients.

METHODS

Eighty-seven eyes of 87 glaucoma patients underwent size modulation standard automated perimetry with Dynamic strategy and conventional standard automated perimetry using the SITA standard strategy. The main outcome measures were global indices, point-wise threshold, visual defect size and depth, reliability indices, and test duration; these were compared between size modulation standard automated perimetry and conventional standard automated perimetry.

RESULTS

Global indices and point-wise threshold values between size modulation standard automated perimetry and conventional standard automated perimetry were moderately to strongly correlated (p < 0.01). However, the correlation coefficient of point-wise threshold value for the central zone was significantly lower than that for the peripheral zone (χ2 > 33.40, p < 0.01). Better mean defect and point-wise threshold values were obtained with size modulation standard automated perimetry than with conventional standard automated perimetry, but the visual-field defect size was smaller (p < 0.01) and depth shallower (p < 0.01) on size modulation-standard automated perimetry than on conventional standard automated perimetry. The reliability indices, particularly the false-negative response, of size modulation standard automated perimetry were worse than those of conventional standard automated perimetry (p < 0.01). The test duration was 6.5% shorter with size modulation standard automated perimetry than with conventional standard automated perimetry (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Global indices and the point-wise threshold value of the two testing modalities correlated well. However, the potential of a large stimulus presented at an area with a decreased sensitivity with size modulation standard automated perimetry could underestimate the actual threshold in the 10-2 test protocol, as compared with conventional standard automated perimetry.