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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Archives of ophthalmology (1960) 2010-05, Vol.128 (5), p.570-576 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
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--></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 & 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&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--></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 & 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 & 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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & 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--></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 |