Diagnostic Accuracy of the Matrix 24-2 and Original N-30 Frequency-Doubling Technology Tests Compared with Standard Automated Perimetry
Open Access
- 1 March 2008
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) in Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
- Vol. 49 (3) , 954-960
- https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.07-0493
Abstract
Purpose. To compare the diagnostic accuracy of the Matrix frequency-doubling technology (FDT) 24-2, first-generation FDT N-30 (FDT N-30), and standard automated perimetry (SAP) tests of visual function. methods. One eye of each of 85 glaucoma patients and 81 healthy controls from the Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma Study was included. Evidence of glaucomatous optic neuropathy on stereophotographs was used to classify the eyes. Matrix FDT 24-2, first-generation FDT N-30, and SAP-SITA 24-2 tests were performed on all participants within 3 months. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated and used to determine sensitivity levels at 80% and 90% specificity for mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), number of total deviation (TD), and pattern deviation (PD) points triggered at less than 5% and 1%. The tests were compared using the best parameter for each test (that with the highest area under the ROC curve) and with the PSD. results. The best parameters were MD for SAP (0.680), PSD for FDT N-30 (0.733), and number of TD less than 5% points for FDT 24-2 (0.774). Using the best parameter, the area under the ROC curve was significantly larger for FDT 24-2 than for SAP (P = 0.01). No statistically significant differences were observed between SAP and FDT N-30 (P = 0.21) and FDT N-30 and FDT 24-2 (P = 0.26). Similar results were obtained when the PSD was used to compare the tests, with the exception that the area under the ROC curve for the FDT N-30 test (0.733) was significantly larger than that of the SAP-SITA (0.641; P = 0.03). conclusions. The performance of the Matrix FDT 24-2 was similar to that of the first-generation FDT N-30. The Matrix FDT 24-2 test was consistently better than SAP at discriminating between healthy and glaucomatous eyes. Further studies are needed to evaluate the ability of the Matrix FDT 24-2 to monitor glaucoma progression.Keywords
This publication has 33 references indexed in Scilit:
- Comparison of Visual Field Defects Using Matrix Perimetry and Standard Achromatic PerimetryOphthalmology, 2007
- Identifying Glaucomatous Vision Loss with Visual-Function–Specific Perimetry in the Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma StudyInvestigative Opthalmology & Visual Science, 2006
- A Statistical Approach to the Evaluation of Covariate Effects on the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves of Diagnostic Tests in GlaucomaInvestigative Opthalmology & Visual Science, 2006
- Clinical evaluation of frequency doubling technology perimetry using the Humphrey Matrix 24-2 threshold strategyBritish Journal of Ophthalmology, 2005
- Use of Progressive Glaucomatous Optic Disk Change as the Reference Standard for Evaluation of Diagnostic Tests in GlaucomaAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology, 2005
- Characteristics of the normative database for the Humphrey matrix perimeter.Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science, 2005
- Frequency-doubling technology perimetryOphthalmology Clinics of North America, 2003
- Structure and function evaluation (SAFE): II. comparison of optic disk and visual field characteristicsAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology, 2003
- Structure and function evaluation (SAFE): I. criteria for glaucomatous visual field loss using standard automated perimetry (SAP) and short wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP)American Journal of Ophthalmology, 2002
- Clinical comparison of frequency doubling technology perimetry and Humphrey perimetryBritish Journal of Ophthalmology, 2001