The Effective Dynamic Ranges of Standard Automated Perimetry Sizes III and V and Motion and Matrix Perimetry

OBJECTIVES To establish the associations between threshold estimates of 4 perimetric tests and to define and compare the tests' effective dynamic ranges. METHODS We examined 152 patients with glaucoma and 80 controls using standard automated perimetry (SAP) with stimulus size III, SAP with size...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Archives of ophthalmology (1960) 2010-05, Vol.128 (5), p.570-576
Hauptverfasser: Wall, Michael, Woodward, Kimberly R, Doyle, Carrie K, Zamba, Gideon
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 576
container_issue 5
container_start_page 570
container_title Archives of ophthalmology (1960)
container_volume 128
creator Wall, Michael
Woodward, Kimberly R
Doyle, Carrie K
Zamba, Gideon
description OBJECTIVES To establish the associations between threshold estimates of 4 perimetric tests and to define and compare the tests' effective dynamic ranges. METHODS We examined 152 patients with glaucoma and 80 controls using standard automated perimetry (SAP) with stimulus size III, SAP with size V, and motion and matrix perimetry. We explored the intertest associations using principal-components analysis. We defined the effective dynamic range bottom using the frequency of 0-dB trials on retest. We defined the upper effective dynamic range as a value above which fewer than 0.5% of the values fall in the controls. We also calculated the number of discriminable steps from normal to the floor value of the perimeter. RESULTS The association between SAP III and V was approximately linear up to a sensitivity of about 20 dB on both tests and with motion and matrix perimetry up to about 25 dB from 0 dB. While the upper bounds were similar among the tests, size V SAP had a lower floor and more discriminable steps. CONCLUSIONS The effective dynamic range of SAP III is substantially less than its physically tested limits. Size V stimuli have a greater effective dynamic range than size III by about 1 log unit and have about twice as many discriminable steps.Arch Ophthalmol. 2010;128(5):570-576-->
doi_str_mv 10.1001/archophthalmol.2010.71
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_733087729</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ama_id>425564</ama_id><sourcerecordid>2032334931</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a451t-727ed3cb50a93bf99965ac242c060766d17a0044604e6c74018103ec128ac7633</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpd0V9vFCEQAHBibOxZ_QC-NMTE-LR1gAWWx6ZWvaSNxlZfyRzLetvsLiewxvPTS3vXNvrCn8xvJgNDyDGDEwbA3mF067BZ5zUOYxhOOJSAZk_IgknRVEIBe0oWACAqYyQckucp3ZSrYmCekUMOtdRG6wUZrteennedd7n_5en77YRj7-hXnH74RENHrzJOLcaWns45jJh9S7_42I8-xy296v8UtVwuaUH0-916GXIfpt0Rc-x_P_oX5KDDIfmX-_2IfPtwfn32qbr4_HF5dnpRYS1ZrjTXvhVuJQGNWHXGGCXR8Zo7UKCVaplGgLpWUHvldA2sYSC8Y7xBp5UQR-Ttru4mhp-zT9mOfXJ-GHDyYU5WCwGN1twU-fo_eRPmOJXmLBfMSM5UXZDaIRdDStF3dlMehHFrGdjbadh_p2Fvp2E1K4nH--rzavTtQ9r99xfwZg8wORy6iJPr06PjummUbIp7tXM44kO05lKW7v4C6AWdZg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>231952164</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Effective Dynamic Ranges of Standard Automated Perimetry Sizes III and V and Motion and Matrix Perimetry</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Wall, Michael ; Woodward, Kimberly R ; Doyle, Carrie K ; Zamba, Gideon</creator><creatorcontrib>Wall, Michael ; Woodward, Kimberly R ; Doyle, Carrie K ; Zamba, Gideon</creatorcontrib><description>OBJECTIVES To establish the associations between threshold estimates of 4 perimetric tests and to define and compare the tests' effective dynamic ranges. METHODS We examined 152 patients with glaucoma and 80 controls using standard automated perimetry (SAP) with stimulus size III, SAP with size V, and motion and matrix perimetry. We explored the intertest associations using principal-components analysis. We defined the effective dynamic range bottom using the frequency of 0-dB trials on retest. We defined the upper effective dynamic range as a value above which fewer than 0.5% of the values fall in the controls. We also calculated the number of discriminable steps from normal to the floor value of the perimeter. RESULTS The association between SAP III and V was approximately linear up to a sensitivity of about 20 dB on both tests and with motion and matrix perimetry up to about 25 dB from 0 dB. While the upper bounds were similar among the tests, size V SAP had a lower floor and more discriminable steps. CONCLUSIONS The effective dynamic range of SAP III is substantially less than its physically tested limits. Size V stimuli have a greater effective dynamic range than size III by about 1 log unit and have about twice as many discriminable steps.Arch Ophthalmol. 2010;128(5):570-576--&gt;</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-9950</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 2168-6165</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1538-3601</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2168-6173</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1001/archophthalmol.2010.71</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20457977</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chicago, IL: American Medical Association</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Biological and medical sciences ; Comparative analysis ; Correlation analysis ; Eyes &amp; eyesight ; Female ; Glaucoma ; Glaucoma - diagnosis ; Glaucoma - physiopathology ; Humans ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Medical tests ; Middle Aged ; Miscellaneous ; Motion ; Ophthalmology ; Principal components analysis ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Sensory Thresholds ; Vision Disorders - diagnosis ; Vision Disorders - physiopathology ; Visual Field Tests - instrumentation ; Visual Field Tests - methods ; Visual Fields</subject><ispartof>Archives of ophthalmology (1960), 2010-05, Vol.128 (5), p.570-576</ispartof><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright American Medical Association May 2010</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a451t-727ed3cb50a93bf99965ac242c060766d17a0044604e6c74018103ec128ac7633</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=22788658$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20457977$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wall, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Woodward, Kimberly R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Doyle, Carrie K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zamba, Gideon</creatorcontrib><title>The Effective Dynamic Ranges of Standard Automated Perimetry Sizes III and V and Motion and Matrix Perimetry</title><title>Archives of ophthalmology (1960)</title><addtitle>Arch Ophthalmol</addtitle><description>OBJECTIVES To establish the associations between threshold estimates of 4 perimetric tests and to define and compare the tests' effective dynamic ranges. METHODS We examined 152 patients with glaucoma and 80 controls using standard automated perimetry (SAP) with stimulus size III, SAP with size V, and motion and matrix perimetry. We explored the intertest associations using principal-components analysis. We defined the effective dynamic range bottom using the frequency of 0-dB trials on retest. We defined the upper effective dynamic range as a value above which fewer than 0.5% of the values fall in the controls. We also calculated the number of discriminable steps from normal to the floor value of the perimeter. RESULTS The association between SAP III and V was approximately linear up to a sensitivity of about 20 dB on both tests and with motion and matrix perimetry up to about 25 dB from 0 dB. While the upper bounds were similar among the tests, size V SAP had a lower floor and more discriminable steps. CONCLUSIONS The effective dynamic range of SAP III is substantially less than its physically tested limits. Size V stimuli have a greater effective dynamic range than size III by about 1 log unit and have about twice as many discriminable steps.Arch Ophthalmol. 2010;128(5):570-576--&gt;</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Correlation analysis</subject><subject>Eyes &amp; eyesight</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Glaucoma</subject><subject>Glaucoma - diagnosis</subject><subject>Glaucoma - physiopathology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Medical tests</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Miscellaneous</subject><subject>Motion</subject><subject>Ophthalmology</subject><subject>Principal components analysis</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Sensory Thresholds</subject><subject>Vision Disorders - diagnosis</subject><subject>Vision Disorders - physiopathology</subject><subject>Visual Field Tests - instrumentation</subject><subject>Visual Field Tests - methods</subject><subject>Visual Fields</subject><issn>0003-9950</issn><issn>2168-6165</issn><issn>1538-3601</issn><issn>2168-6173</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpd0V9vFCEQAHBibOxZ_QC-NMTE-LR1gAWWx6ZWvaSNxlZfyRzLetvsLiewxvPTS3vXNvrCn8xvJgNDyDGDEwbA3mF067BZ5zUOYxhOOJSAZk_IgknRVEIBe0oWACAqYyQckucp3ZSrYmCekUMOtdRG6wUZrteennedd7n_5en77YRj7-hXnH74RENHrzJOLcaWns45jJh9S7_42I8-xy296v8UtVwuaUH0-916GXIfpt0Rc-x_P_oX5KDDIfmX-_2IfPtwfn32qbr4_HF5dnpRYS1ZrjTXvhVuJQGNWHXGGCXR8Zo7UKCVaplGgLpWUHvldA2sYSC8Y7xBp5UQR-Ttru4mhp-zT9mOfXJ-GHDyYU5WCwGN1twU-fo_eRPmOJXmLBfMSM5UXZDaIRdDStF3dlMehHFrGdjbadh_p2Fvp2E1K4nH--rzavTtQ9r99xfwZg8wORy6iJPr06PjummUbIp7tXM44kO05lKW7v4C6AWdZg</recordid><startdate>20100501</startdate><enddate>20100501</enddate><creator>Wall, Michael</creator><creator>Woodward, Kimberly R</creator><creator>Doyle, Carrie K</creator><creator>Zamba, Gideon</creator><general>American Medical Association</general><scope>IQODW</scope><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>7TK</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20100501</creationdate><title>The Effective Dynamic Ranges of Standard Automated Perimetry Sizes III and V and Motion and Matrix Perimetry</title><author>Wall, Michael ; Woodward, Kimberly R ; Doyle, Carrie K ; Zamba, Gideon</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a451t-727ed3cb50a93bf99965ac242c060766d17a0044604e6c74018103ec128ac7633</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Correlation analysis</topic><topic>Eyes &amp; eyesight</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Glaucoma</topic><topic>Glaucoma - diagnosis</topic><topic>Glaucoma - physiopathology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Medical tests</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Miscellaneous</topic><topic>Motion</topic><topic>Ophthalmology</topic><topic>Principal components analysis</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Sensory Thresholds</topic><topic>Vision Disorders - diagnosis</topic><topic>Vision Disorders - physiopathology</topic><topic>Visual Field Tests - instrumentation</topic><topic>Visual Field Tests - methods</topic><topic>Visual Fields</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wall, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Woodward, Kimberly R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Doyle, Carrie K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zamba, Gideon</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Archives of ophthalmology (1960)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wall, Michael</au><au>Woodward, Kimberly R</au><au>Doyle, Carrie K</au><au>Zamba, Gideon</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Effective Dynamic Ranges of Standard Automated Perimetry Sizes III and V and Motion and Matrix Perimetry</atitle><jtitle>Archives of ophthalmology (1960)</jtitle><addtitle>Arch Ophthalmol</addtitle><date>2010-05-01</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>128</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>570</spage><epage>576</epage><pages>570-576</pages><issn>0003-9950</issn><issn>2168-6165</issn><eissn>1538-3601</eissn><eissn>2168-6173</eissn><abstract>OBJECTIVES To establish the associations between threshold estimates of 4 perimetric tests and to define and compare the tests' effective dynamic ranges. METHODS We examined 152 patients with glaucoma and 80 controls using standard automated perimetry (SAP) with stimulus size III, SAP with size V, and motion and matrix perimetry. We explored the intertest associations using principal-components analysis. We defined the effective dynamic range bottom using the frequency of 0-dB trials on retest. We defined the upper effective dynamic range as a value above which fewer than 0.5% of the values fall in the controls. We also calculated the number of discriminable steps from normal to the floor value of the perimeter. RESULTS The association between SAP III and V was approximately linear up to a sensitivity of about 20 dB on both tests and with motion and matrix perimetry up to about 25 dB from 0 dB. While the upper bounds were similar among the tests, size V SAP had a lower floor and more discriminable steps. CONCLUSIONS The effective dynamic range of SAP III is substantially less than its physically tested limits. Size V stimuli have a greater effective dynamic range than size III by about 1 log unit and have about twice as many discriminable steps.Arch Ophthalmol. 2010;128(5):570-576--&gt;</abstract><cop>Chicago, IL</cop><pub>American Medical Association</pub><pmid>20457977</pmid><doi>10.1001/archophthalmol.2010.71</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0003-9950
ispartof Archives of ophthalmology (1960), 2010-05, Vol.128 (5), p.570-576
issn 0003-9950
2168-6165
1538-3601
2168-6173
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_733087729
source MEDLINE; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Biological and medical sciences
Comparative analysis
Correlation analysis
Eyes & eyesight
Female
Glaucoma
Glaucoma - diagnosis
Glaucoma - physiopathology
Humans
Male
Medical sciences
Medical tests
Middle Aged
Miscellaneous
Motion
Ophthalmology
Principal components analysis
Sensitivity and Specificity
Sensory Thresholds
Vision Disorders - diagnosis
Vision Disorders - physiopathology
Visual Field Tests - instrumentation
Visual Field Tests - methods
Visual Fields
title The Effective Dynamic Ranges of Standard Automated Perimetry Sizes III and V and Motion and Matrix Perimetry
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T23%3A58%3A25IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Effective%20Dynamic%20Ranges%20of%20Standard%20Automated%20Perimetry%20Sizes%20III%20and%20V%20and%20Motion%20and%20Matrix%20Perimetry&rft.jtitle=Archives%20of%20ophthalmology%20(1960)&rft.au=Wall,%20Michael&rft.date=2010-05-01&rft.volume=128&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=570&rft.epage=576&rft.pages=570-576&rft.issn=0003-9950&rft.eissn=1538-3601&rft_id=info:doi/10.1001/archophthalmol.2010.71&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2032334931%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=231952164&rft_id=info:pmid/20457977&rft_ama_id=425564&rfr_iscdi=true