Detection of central visual field defects in early glaucomatous eyes: Comparison of Humphrey and Octopus perimetry
To compare the detection rate of central visual field defect (CVFD) between the 30-degree Octopus G1 program (Dynamic strategy) and the HFA 10-2 SITA-Standard test in early glaucoma eyes not showing any CVFD on the HFA 24-2 SITA-Standard test. One eye of 41 early glaucoma patients without CVFD in th...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2017-10, Vol.12 (10), p.e0186793-e0186793 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e0186793 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 10 |
| container_start_page | e0186793 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 12 |
| creator | Roberti, Gloria Manni, Gianluca Riva, Ivano Holló, Gabor Quaranta, Luciano Agnifili, Luca Figus, Michele Giammaria, Sara Rastelli, Davide Oddone, Francesco |
| description | To compare the detection rate of central visual field defect (CVFD) between the 30-degree Octopus G1 program (Dynamic strategy) and the HFA 10-2 SITA-Standard test in early glaucoma eyes not showing any CVFD on the HFA 24-2 SITA-Standard test.
One eye of 41 early glaucoma patients without CVFD in the central 10° on HFA 24-2 test was tested with both the HFA 10-2 test and the Octopus G1 program 15 minutes apart, in random order. The primary outcome measure was the comparison of CVFD detection rates. Secondary outcome measures comprised the agreement in detecting CVFD, and the comparison of test durations and the numbers of depressed test points outside the central 10-degree area between the HFA 24-2 test and the Octopus G1 program.
The mean age of the population was 65.2±10.1 years, and the mean deviation with HFA 24-2 was -3.26±2.6 dB. The mean test duration was not significantly different between the tests (p = 0.13). A CVFD was present in 33 (80.4%) HFA 10-2 test and in 23 (56.0%) Octopus G1 tests (p = 0.002). The overall agreement between the HFA 10-2 and Octopus G1 examinations in classifying eyes as having or not having CVFD was moderate (Cohen's kappa 0.47). The Octopus G1 program showed 69.6% sensitivity and 100% specificity to detect CVFD in eyes where the HFA 10-2 test revealed a CVFD. The number of depressed test points (p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0186793 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1956479371</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A511732606</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_d23ba231748e4c719f341774bf07842a</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A511732606</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c758t-2954eb17f9e3fef3815080502b87997d68e37f27090d21eea31f70a6b0f228df3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk1tr2zAUx83YWC_bNxibYTC2h2S62Ja1h0HJLg0UAru9Ctk-ShRky5Xk0nz7KY1b4tGHoQcJ6Xf-5-gvnSR5hdEcU4Y_bu3gOmnmve1gjnBZME6fJKeYUzIrCKJPj9YnyZn3W4RyWhbF8-SEcMQYo-g0cV8gQB207VKr0hq64KRJb7Qf4qQ0mCZtQEXCp7pLQTqzS9dGDrVtZbCDT2EH_lO6sG0vnfYHmcuh7TcOdqnsmnRVB9tHsAenWwhu9yJ5pqTx8HKcz5Pf377-WlzOrlbfl4uLq1nN8jLMCM8zqDBTHKgCRUucoxLliFQl45w1RQmUKcIQRw3BAJJixZAsKqQIKRtFz5M3B93eWC9Gu7zAPC-y6BXDkVgeiMbKrehjfdLthJVa3G1YtxbSBV0bEA2hlSQUs6yErGaYK5phxrJKIVZmREatz2O2oWqhGZ2ciE5POr0Ra3sj8iLn7K6Y96OAs9cD-CBa7WswRnYQjd7XzTJOaMYi-vYf9PHbjdRaxgvoTtmYt96LioscY0ZJgYpIzR-h4mig1XX8W0rH_UnAh0lAZALchrUcvBfLnz_-n139mbLvjtgNSBM23pph_zf9FMwOYO2s9w7Ug8kYiX1r3Lsh9q0hxtaIYa-PH-gh6L4X6F92eQkU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1956479371</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Detection of central visual field defects in early glaucomatous eyes: Comparison of Humphrey and Octopus perimetry</title><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>PMC (PubMed Central)</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Roberti, Gloria ; Manni, Gianluca ; Riva, Ivano ; Holló, Gabor ; Quaranta, Luciano ; Agnifili, Luca ; Figus, Michele ; Giammaria, Sara ; Rastelli, Davide ; Oddone, Francesco</creator><creatorcontrib>Roberti, Gloria ; Manni, Gianluca ; Riva, Ivano ; Holló, Gabor ; Quaranta, Luciano ; Agnifili, Luca ; Figus, Michele ; Giammaria, Sara ; Rastelli, Davide ; Oddone, Francesco</creatorcontrib><description>To compare the detection rate of central visual field defect (CVFD) between the 30-degree Octopus G1 program (Dynamic strategy) and the HFA 10-2 SITA-Standard test in early glaucoma eyes not showing any CVFD on the HFA 24-2 SITA-Standard test.
One eye of 41 early glaucoma patients without CVFD in the central 10° on HFA 24-2 test was tested with both the HFA 10-2 test and the Octopus G1 program 15 minutes apart, in random order. The primary outcome measure was the comparison of CVFD detection rates. Secondary outcome measures comprised the agreement in detecting CVFD, and the comparison of test durations and the numbers of depressed test points outside the central 10-degree area between the HFA 24-2 test and the Octopus G1 program.
The mean age of the population was 65.2±10.1 years, and the mean deviation with HFA 24-2 was -3.26±2.6 dB. The mean test duration was not significantly different between the tests (p = 0.13). A CVFD was present in 33 (80.4%) HFA 10-2 test and in 23 (56.0%) Octopus G1 tests (p = 0.002). The overall agreement between the HFA 10-2 and Octopus G1 examinations in classifying eyes as having or not having CVFD was moderate (Cohen's kappa 0.47). The Octopus G1 program showed 69.6% sensitivity and 100% specificity to detect CVFD in eyes where the HFA 10-2 test revealed a CVFD. The number of depressed test points (p<5%) outside the central 10° area detected with the Octopus G1 program (19.68±10.6) was significantly higher than that detected with the HFA 24-2 program (11.95±5.5, p<0.001).
Both HFA 10-2 and Octopus G1programs showed CVFD not present at HFA 24-2 test although the agreement was moderate. The use of a single Octopus G1 examination may represent a practical compromise for the assessment of both central and peripheral visual field up to 30° eccentricity without any additional testing and increasing the total investigation time.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186793</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29077730</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Aged ; Automobile driving ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Cephalopoda ; Comparative analysis ; Defects ; Diagnosis ; Eye ; Eye (anatomy) ; Female ; Glaucoma ; Glaucoma - physiopathology ; Humans ; Male ; Medical tests ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Middle Aged ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Risk factors ; Standard deviation ; Studies ; Test procedures ; Tomography ; Visual field ; Visual Field Tests - methods ; Visual Fields</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2017-10, Vol.12 (10), p.e0186793-e0186793</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2017 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2017 Roberti et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2017 Roberti et al 2017 Roberti et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c758t-2954eb17f9e3fef3815080502b87997d68e37f27090d21eea31f70a6b0f228df3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c758t-2954eb17f9e3fef3815080502b87997d68e37f27090d21eea31f70a6b0f228df3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-8788-5785</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5659771/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5659771/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2096,2915,23845,27901,27902,53766,53768,79569,79570</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29077730$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Roberti, Gloria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Manni, Gianluca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Riva, Ivano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Holló, Gabor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quaranta, Luciano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Agnifili, Luca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Figus, Michele</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Giammaria, Sara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rastelli, Davide</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oddone, Francesco</creatorcontrib><title>Detection of central visual field defects in early glaucomatous eyes: Comparison of Humphrey and Octopus perimetry</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>To compare the detection rate of central visual field defect (CVFD) between the 30-degree Octopus G1 program (Dynamic strategy) and the HFA 10-2 SITA-Standard test in early glaucoma eyes not showing any CVFD on the HFA 24-2 SITA-Standard test.
One eye of 41 early glaucoma patients without CVFD in the central 10° on HFA 24-2 test was tested with both the HFA 10-2 test and the Octopus G1 program 15 minutes apart, in random order. The primary outcome measure was the comparison of CVFD detection rates. Secondary outcome measures comprised the agreement in detecting CVFD, and the comparison of test durations and the numbers of depressed test points outside the central 10-degree area between the HFA 24-2 test and the Octopus G1 program.
The mean age of the population was 65.2±10.1 years, and the mean deviation with HFA 24-2 was -3.26±2.6 dB. The mean test duration was not significantly different between the tests (p = 0.13). A CVFD was present in 33 (80.4%) HFA 10-2 test and in 23 (56.0%) Octopus G1 tests (p = 0.002). The overall agreement between the HFA 10-2 and Octopus G1 examinations in classifying eyes as having or not having CVFD was moderate (Cohen's kappa 0.47). The Octopus G1 program showed 69.6% sensitivity and 100% specificity to detect CVFD in eyes where the HFA 10-2 test revealed a CVFD. The number of depressed test points (p<5%) outside the central 10° area detected with the Octopus G1 program (19.68±10.6) was significantly higher than that detected with the HFA 24-2 program (11.95±5.5, p<0.001).
Both HFA 10-2 and Octopus G1programs showed CVFD not present at HFA 24-2 test although the agreement was moderate. The use of a single Octopus G1 examination may represent a practical compromise for the assessment of both central and peripheral visual field up to 30° eccentricity without any additional testing and increasing the total investigation time.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Automobile driving</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Cephalopoda</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Defects</subject><subject>Diagnosis</subject><subject>Eye</subject><subject>Eye (anatomy)</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Glaucoma</subject><subject>Glaucoma - physiopathology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical tests</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Risk factors</subject><subject>Standard deviation</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Test procedures</subject><subject>Tomography</subject><subject>Visual field</subject><subject>Visual Field Tests - methods</subject><subject>Visual Fields</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk1tr2zAUx83YWC_bNxibYTC2h2S62Ja1h0HJLg0UAru9Ctk-ShRky5Xk0nz7KY1b4tGHoQcJ6Xf-5-gvnSR5hdEcU4Y_bu3gOmnmve1gjnBZME6fJKeYUzIrCKJPj9YnyZn3W4RyWhbF8-SEcMQYo-g0cV8gQB207VKr0hq64KRJb7Qf4qQ0mCZtQEXCp7pLQTqzS9dGDrVtZbCDT2EH_lO6sG0vnfYHmcuh7TcOdqnsmnRVB9tHsAenWwhu9yJ5pqTx8HKcz5Pf377-WlzOrlbfl4uLq1nN8jLMCM8zqDBTHKgCRUucoxLliFQl45w1RQmUKcIQRw3BAJJixZAsKqQIKRtFz5M3B93eWC9Gu7zAPC-y6BXDkVgeiMbKrehjfdLthJVa3G1YtxbSBV0bEA2hlSQUs6yErGaYK5phxrJKIVZmREatz2O2oWqhGZ2ciE5POr0Ra3sj8iLn7K6Y96OAs9cD-CBa7WswRnYQjd7XzTJOaMYi-vYf9PHbjdRaxgvoTtmYt96LioscY0ZJgYpIzR-h4mig1XX8W0rH_UnAh0lAZALchrUcvBfLnz_-n139mbLvjtgNSBM23pph_zf9FMwOYO2s9w7Ug8kYiX1r3Lsh9q0hxtaIYa-PH-gh6L4X6F92eQkU</recordid><startdate>20171027</startdate><enddate>20171027</enddate><creator>Roberti, Gloria</creator><creator>Manni, Gianluca</creator><creator>Riva, Ivano</creator><creator>Holló, Gabor</creator><creator>Quaranta, Luciano</creator><creator>Agnifili, Luca</creator><creator>Figus, Michele</creator><creator>Giammaria, Sara</creator><creator>Rastelli, Davide</creator><creator>Oddone, Francesco</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8788-5785</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20171027</creationdate><title>Detection of central visual field defects in early glaucomatous eyes: Comparison of Humphrey and Octopus perimetry</title><author>Roberti, Gloria ; Manni, Gianluca ; Riva, Ivano ; Holló, Gabor ; Quaranta, Luciano ; Agnifili, Luca ; Figus, Michele ; Giammaria, Sara ; Rastelli, Davide ; Oddone, Francesco</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c758t-2954eb17f9e3fef3815080502b87997d68e37f27090d21eea31f70a6b0f228df3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Automobile driving</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Cephalopoda</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Defects</topic><topic>Diagnosis</topic><topic>Eye</topic><topic>Eye (anatomy)</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Glaucoma</topic><topic>Glaucoma - physiopathology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical tests</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Risk factors</topic><topic>Standard deviation</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Test procedures</topic><topic>Tomography</topic><topic>Visual field</topic><topic>Visual Field Tests - methods</topic><topic>Visual Fields</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Roberti, Gloria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Manni, Gianluca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Riva, Ivano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Holló, Gabor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quaranta, Luciano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Agnifili, Luca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Figus, Michele</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Giammaria, Sara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rastelli, Davide</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oddone, Francesco</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Opposing Viewpoints in Context (Gale)</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Roberti, Gloria</au><au>Manni, Gianluca</au><au>Riva, Ivano</au><au>Holló, Gabor</au><au>Quaranta, Luciano</au><au>Agnifili, Luca</au><au>Figus, Michele</au><au>Giammaria, Sara</au><au>Rastelli, Davide</au><au>Oddone, Francesco</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Detection of central visual field defects in early glaucomatous eyes: Comparison of Humphrey and Octopus perimetry</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2017-10-27</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>12</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>e0186793</spage><epage>e0186793</epage><pages>e0186793-e0186793</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>To compare the detection rate of central visual field defect (CVFD) between the 30-degree Octopus G1 program (Dynamic strategy) and the HFA 10-2 SITA-Standard test in early glaucoma eyes not showing any CVFD on the HFA 24-2 SITA-Standard test.
One eye of 41 early glaucoma patients without CVFD in the central 10° on HFA 24-2 test was tested with both the HFA 10-2 test and the Octopus G1 program 15 minutes apart, in random order. The primary outcome measure was the comparison of CVFD detection rates. Secondary outcome measures comprised the agreement in detecting CVFD, and the comparison of test durations and the numbers of depressed test points outside the central 10-degree area between the HFA 24-2 test and the Octopus G1 program.
The mean age of the population was 65.2±10.1 years, and the mean deviation with HFA 24-2 was -3.26±2.6 dB. The mean test duration was not significantly different between the tests (p = 0.13). A CVFD was present in 33 (80.4%) HFA 10-2 test and in 23 (56.0%) Octopus G1 tests (p = 0.002). The overall agreement between the HFA 10-2 and Octopus G1 examinations in classifying eyes as having or not having CVFD was moderate (Cohen's kappa 0.47). The Octopus G1 program showed 69.6% sensitivity and 100% specificity to detect CVFD in eyes where the HFA 10-2 test revealed a CVFD. The number of depressed test points (p<5%) outside the central 10° area detected with the Octopus G1 program (19.68±10.6) was significantly higher than that detected with the HFA 24-2 program (11.95±5.5, p<0.001).
Both HFA 10-2 and Octopus G1programs showed CVFD not present at HFA 24-2 test although the agreement was moderate. The use of a single Octopus G1 examination may represent a practical compromise for the assessment of both central and peripheral visual field up to 30° eccentricity without any additional testing and increasing the total investigation time.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>29077730</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0186793</doi><tpages>e0186793</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8788-5785</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2017-10, Vol.12 (10), p.e0186793-e0186793 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_1956479371 |
| source | Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; MEDLINE; PMC (PubMed Central); DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | Aged Automobile driving Biology and Life Sciences Cephalopoda Comparative analysis Defects Diagnosis Eye Eye (anatomy) Female Glaucoma Glaucoma - physiopathology Humans Male Medical tests Medicine and Health Sciences Middle Aged Research and Analysis Methods Risk factors Standard deviation Studies Test procedures Tomography Visual field Visual Field Tests - methods Visual Fields |
| title | Detection of central visual field defects in early glaucomatous eyes: Comparison of Humphrey and Octopus perimetry |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-14T06%3A54%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Detection%20of%20central%20visual%20field%20defects%20in%20early%20glaucomatous%20eyes:%20Comparison%20of%20Humphrey%20and%20Octopus%20perimetry&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Roberti,%20Gloria&rft.date=2017-10-27&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=e0186793&rft.epage=e0186793&rft.pages=e0186793-e0186793&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0186793&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA511732606%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1956479371&rft_id=info:pmid/29077730&rft_galeid=A511732606&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_d23ba231748e4c719f341774bf07842a&rfr_iscdi=true |