Advertisement

Eye Movement Perimetry and Frequency Doubling Perimetry: clinical performance and patient preference during glaucoma screening

  • Najiya Sundus Kadavath Meethal
  • Johan J. M. Pel
  • Deepmala Mazumdar
  • Rashima Asokan
  • Manish Panday
  • Johannes van der Steen
  • Ronnie GeorgeEmail author
Glaucoma
  • 26 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the screening accuracy of an Eye Movement Perimetry (EMP) in comparison with Frequency Doubling Perimetry (FDP) and to investigate the patient preference and perception towards these visual field screening methods.

Methods

A total of 104 healthy subjects (mean age (SD) of 48 (14) years) and 73 glaucoma patients (mean age (SD) of 52 (13) years) were recruited. All the participants underwent a comprehensive ophthalmic evaluation including the 24-2 SITA standard protocol on the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA). This was followed by the 26-point protocol in EMP and the C-20-1 protocol in FDP. During EMP, all subjects were instructed to fixate a central target and to look at the detected peripheral target, followed by refixation of the central target and Saccadic Reaction Time (SRT) towards each of the “seen” stimuli was calculated. Next, a questionnaire was administered to evaluate the patient preference and perception towards the perimetry techniques. Mean SRTs and Robin scores were used to plot Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) curves to determine the screening accuracies. From the questionnaire survey, the frequency distributions of the responses were calculated.

Results

Robin score and SRT were significantly increased in glaucoma patients in comparison with the age-matched healthy subjects (p < 0.001). The ROC analysis revealed comparable Area Under the Curve (AUC) values (0.95, p = 0.81) with a specificity of 95.2% for FDP and 96.2% for EMP with a sensitivity of 87.7%. Thirty-seven percent of the older age group (≥ 40 years) and 65% of severe glaucoma patients showed preference for EMP over FDP.

Conclusions

This study results indicate that the customized protocol in EMP provides efficient and rapid means of screening visual field defects in glaucoma, which compared well with FDP. Elderly healthy participants and patients with moderate and severe glaucomatous defects preferred EMP as it permitted natural reflexive eye movements thereby resembling a real-life test setting.

Keywords

Glaucoma screening Visual field defects Perimetry Eye movement perimetry Saccadic reaction time Frequency doubling perimetry Robin’s score Patient preference 

Notes

Funding information

This study was financially supported by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development [ZonMw, grant no. 116310001] and the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India [DST/INT/NL/Biomed/P (2)/2011(G)] and the foundations Glaucoomfonds, Oogfonds, Rotterdamse Stichting Blindenbelangen, and Stichting Blindenhulp contributed through UitZicht.

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. The funding organizations had no role in the design or conduct of this research. They provided unrestricted grants.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Additional informed consent was obtained from all individual participants for whom identifying information is included in this article.

References

  1. 1.
    Foster PJ, Buhrmann R, Quigley HA, Johnson GJ (2002) The definition and classification of glaucoma in prevalence surveys. Br J Ophthalmol 86(2):238–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    George R, Ramesh SV, Vijaya L (2010) Glaucoma in India: estimated burden of disease. J Glaucoma 19(6):391–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tham YC, Li X, Wong TY, Quigley HA, Aung T, Cheng CY (2014) Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology 121(11):2081–2090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Varma R, Lee PP, Goldberg I, Kotak S (2011) An assessment of the health and economic burdens of glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 152(4):515–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sharma P, Sample PA, Zangwill LM, Schuman JS (2008) Diagnostic tools for glaucoma detection and management. Surv Ophthalmol 53(6):S17–S32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kim, DE, Eizenman M, Trope GE, Kranemann C (1995) Eye movement perimetry. In Engineering in medicine and biology society, 1995, IEEE 17th annual conference. IEEE. 2:1629–1630Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Toepfer A, Kasten E, Guenther T, Sabel BA (2008) Perimetry while moving the eyes: implications for the variability of visual field defects. J Neuroophthalmol 28(4):308–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mazumdar D, Pel JM, Panday M, Asokan R, Vijaya L, Shantha B, Van Der Steen J (2014) Comparison of saccadic reaction time between normal and glaucoma using an eye movement perimeter. Indian J Ophthalmol 62(1):55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Murray IC, Perperidis A, Cameron LA et al (2017) Comparison of saccadic vector optokinetic perimetry and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma. Part I: threshold values and repeatability. Transl Vis Sci Technol 6(5):3–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Meethal NK, Mazumdar D, Asokan R et al (2018) Development of a test grid using eye movement perimetry for screening glaucomatous visual field defects. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 256(2):371–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thomas R, Bhat S, Muliyil JP, Parikh R, George R (2002) Frequency doubling perimetry in glaucoma. J Glaucoma 11(1):46–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Anderson RD, Patella VM (1999) Automated static perimetry, 2nd edn. Mosby, St. LouisGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Quigley HA (1998) Identification of glaucoma-related visual field abnormality with the screening protocol of frequency doubling technology. Am J Ophthalmol 125(6):819–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Johnson CA, Samuels SJ (1997) Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss with frequency-doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 38(2):413–425Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Patel SC, Friedman DS, Varadkar P, Robin AL (2000) Algorithm for interpreting the results of doubling perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol 129(3):323–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Najiya Sundus K.M, Lokapavani V, Asokan R, Vijaya L, George R.J, (in press). SITA standard testing with Humphrey visual field analyzer versus full threshold testing with frequency doubling perimeter: a comparison of patient preference and perception. Asian J OphthalmolGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pel JJ, van Beijsterveld MC, Thepass G, van der Steen J (2013) Validity and repeatability of saccadic response times across the visual field in eye movement perimetry. Trans Vision Sci Technol 2(7):3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Munoz DP, Broughton JR, Goldring JE, Armstrong IT (1998) Age-related performance of human subjects on saccadic eye movement tasks. Exp Brain Res 121(4):391–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chylack LT, Leske MC, McCarthy D et al (1989) Lens opacities classification system II (LOCS II). Arch Ophthalmol 107(7):991–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Contestabile MT, Perdicchi A, Amodeo S et al (2013) Effect of refractive correction on the accuracy of frequency-doubling technology matrix. J Glaucoma 22(5):413–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vikesdal GH, Langaas T (2016) Optically induced refractive errors reduces fixation stability but saccade latency remains stable. J Eye Mov Res 9 (7)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Casson RJ, James B (2006) Effect of cataract on frequency doubling perimetry in the screening mode. J Glaucoma 15(1):23–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thepass G, Pel JJM, Vermeer KA, Creten O, Bryan SR, Lemij HG, van der Steen J (2015) The effect of cataract on eye movement perimetry. J Ophthalmol 2015:9.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/425067 Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Adams CW, Bullimore MA, Wall M, Fingeret M, Johnson CA (1999) Normal aging effects for frequency doubling technology perimetry. Optom Vis Sci 76(8):582–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    McTrusty AD, Cameron LA, Perperidis A et al (2017) Comparison of threshold saccadic vector optokinetic perimetry (SVOP) and standard automated perimetry (SAP) in glaucoma. Part II: patterns of visual field loss and acceptability. Transl Vis Sci Technol 6(5):4–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chew SS, Kerr NM, Wong AB, Craig JP, Chou CY, Danesh-Meyer HV (2016) Anxiety in visual field testing. Br J Ophthalmol 100(8):1128–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Glen FC, Baker H, Crabb DP (2014) A qualitative investigation into patients’ views on visual field testing for glaucoma monitoring. BMJ Open 4(1):e003996CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Najiya Sundus Kadavath Meethal
    • 1
    • 2
  • Johan J. M. Pel
    • 1
  • Deepmala Mazumdar
    • 1
    • 2
  • Rashima Asokan
    • 2
  • Manish Panday
    • 2
  • Johannes van der Steen
    • 1
    • 3
  • Ronnie George
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Neuroscience, Vestibular and Ocular Motor Research GroupErasmus MCRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Medical and Vision Research FoundationChennaiIndia
  3. 3.Royal Dutch VisioHuizenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations