Purpose: To compare the diagnostic abilities of the standard bracketing strategy (BR) and a fast strategy, the tendency-oriented perimetry (TOP). Methods: Seventy-seven controls and 91 eyes from patients with glaucoma were analyzed with the strategies TOP and BR. Sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AC) and the optimum cutoff value (CO) were calculated for the visual field indices mean defect (MD), the square root of the loss variance (sLV) and the number of pathological points (NPP). Results: In the glaucoma group, the mean MD value using TOP and BR was 7.5 and 8.3 dB, respectively. The mean sLV value using TOP and BR was 5.0 and 5.3 dB, respectively. Indices provided by TOP had higher ROC values than the ones provided by BR. Using TOP, the index with the best diagnostic ability was sLV (Sp = 94.8, Se = 90.1, AC = 0.966, CO = 2.5 dB), followed by NPP and MD. Using BR, the best results were obtained for MD (Sp = 92.2, Se = 81.3, AC = 0.900, CO = 2.5 dB) followed by sLV and NPP. Conclusions: A fast strategy, TOP, had superior diagnostic ability than the standard BR. Although TOP provided lower LV values than BR, the diagnostic ability of this index was higher than that of the conventional strategy.

Keywords:
Visual field, Perimetry, Glaucoma
1.
Krakau CE: Visual field testing with reduced sets of test points. A computerized analysis. Doc Ophthalmol 1989;73:71–80.
2.
Gonzalez de la Rosa M, Abreu Reyes J, Gonzalez Sierra M: Rapid assessment of the visual field in glaucoma using an analysis based on multiple correlations. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1990;228:387–391.
3.
Weber J: Eine neue Strategie für die automatisierte statische Perimetrie. Fortschr Ophthalmol 1990;87:37–40.
4.
Flanagan J, Wild J, Trope G: Evaluation of FASTPAC, a new strategy for thresholds estimation with the Humphrey field analyzer, in a glaucomatous population. Ophthalmology 1993;100:949–954.
5.
González de la Rosa M, Martinez A, Sanchez M, Mesa C, Cordovés L, Losada MJ: Accuracy of the tendency-oriented perimetry (TOP) in the Octopus 1-2-3 Perimeter; in Wall M, Wild J (eds): Perimetry Update 1996/1997. Amsterdam, Kugler, 1997, pp 119–123.
6.
Bengtsson B, Olsson J, Heijl A, Rootzen H: A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry, SITA. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1997;75:368–375.
7.
Takada S, Matsumoto C, Okuyama S, Iwagaki A, Otori T: Comparative evaluation of four strategies (Normal, 2 Level, Dynamic, TOP) using the automated perimeter Octopus 1-2-3; in Wall M, Wild J (eds): Perimetry Update 1998/1999. Amsterdam, Kugler, 1999, pp 35–41.
8.
Morales J, Weitzman M, Gonzalez de la Rosa M: A preliminary comparison between tendency-oriented perimetry (TOP) and traditional threshold perimetry. Ophthalmology 2000;107:134–142.
9.
González de la Rosa M, Morales J, Dannheim F, Papst EN, Seiler T, Demailly P, Lefrançois A, Matsumoto C, Kirstein R, Mermoud A, Pruente C: Multicenter evaluation of tendency-oriented perimetry (TOP) using the G1 grid. Eur J Ophthalmol 2003;13:32–41.
10.
Johnson CA: Recent developments in automated perimetry in glaucoma diagnosis and management. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2002;13:77–84.
11.
Johnson CA, Adams CV, Lewis RA: Fatigue effects in automated perimetry. Appl Opt 1988;27:1030–1037.
12.
Hudson C, Wild JM, O’Neill E: Fatigue effects during a single session of automated static threshold perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1994;35:268–280.
13.
González de la Rosa M, Pareja A: Influence of the fatigue effect on the mean deviation measurement in perimetry. Eur J Ophthalmol 1997;7:29–34.
14.
González de la Rosa M, Martínez Piñero A, González Hernández M: Reproducibility of the TOP algorithm results versus the ones obtained with the bracketing procedure; in Wall M, Wild J (eds): Perimetry Update 1998/1999. Amsterdam, Kugler, 1999, pp 51–58.
15.
Artes PH, Iwase A, Ohno Y, Kitazawa Y, Chauhan BC: Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from Full Threshold, SITA Standard, and SITA Fast strategies. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002;43:2654–2659.
16.
González de la Rosa M, González Hernández M, Aguilar Estévez J, Abreu Reyes A, Pareja Ríos A: Clasificación topográfica del campo visual glaucomatoso. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol 2002;77:87–94.
17.
Gonzalez de la Rosa M, Arteaga A, Fernandez-Baca G, et al: Glaucoma diagnosis using tendency-oriented perimetry. 15th Meet Int Perimetr Soc, Stratford Upon Avon, 2002.
18.
González de la Rosa M, Losada MJ, Serrano M, Morales J: G1 tendency-oriented perimetry (TOP): introduction and comparison with G1 standard bracketing; in Wall M, Wild J (eds): Perimetry Update 1998/1999. Amsterdam, Kugler, 1999, pp 43–49.
19.
Lachkar Y, Barrault O, Lefrançois A, Demailly P: Rapid tendency-oriented perimeter (TOP) with the octopus visual field analyzer. J Fr Ophtalmol 1998;21:180–184.
20.
Horikoshi N, Osako M, Goto H, Tamura Y, Okano T: Clinical evaluation of tendency-oriented perimetry in octopus perimeter. Jap J Clin Ophthalmol 1999;53:889–893.
21.
Maeda H, Nakaura M, Negi A: New perimetric threshold test algorithm with dynamic strategy and tendency-oriented perimetry (TOP) in glaucomatous eyes. Eye 2000;5:747–751.
22.
Anderson AJ: Spatial resolution of the tendency-oriented perimetry algorithm. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003;44:1962–1968.
23.
Flammer J, Drance SM, Zulauf M: Differential light threshold. Short- and long-term fluctuation in patients with glaucoma, normal controls, and patients with suspected glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1984;102:704–706.
24.
Sturmer J, Gloor B, Tobler HJ: Wie sehen Glaukomgesichtsfelder wirklich aus? Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 1984;184:390–393.
25.
González de la Rosa M, González Hernández M, Abraldes M, Azuara-Blanco A: Quantification of inter-point topographic correlations of threshold values in glaucomatous visual fields. J Glaucoma 2002;11:30–34.
26.
Asman P, Heijl A, Olsson J Rootzen H: Spatial analyses of glaucomatous visual fields; a comparison with traditional visual field indices. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1992;70:679–686.
27.
Lauande-Pimentel R, Carvalho RA, Oliveira HC, Goncalves DC, Silva LM, Costa VP: Discrimination between normal and glaucomatous eyes with visual field and scanning laser polarimetry measurements. Br J Ophthalmol 2001;85:586–591.
© 2005 S. Karger AG, Basel
2005
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.