Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, Vol 34, 3271-3277, Copyright © 1993 by Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology

ARTICLES AND REPORTS

Automated suprathreshold screening for glaucoma: the Baltimore Eye Survey

J Katz, JM Tielsch, HA Quigley, J Javitt, K Witt and A Sommer
Dana Center for Preventive Ophthalmology, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21287-9019.

PURPOSE. To evaluate automated suprathreshold perimetric screening for glaucoma in a population-based survey of ocular disorders in east Baltimore, Maryland. METHODS. A population-based sample of persons > or = 40 years of age residing in 16 clusters was selected for an ocular screening examination that included automated suprathreshold testing with the Full Field 120 program of the Humphrey Field Analyzer. Subjects who failed the test underwent manual testing to confirm the defect. Subjects were referred for definitive examination by an ophthalmologist if they had an abnormal field, visual acuity worse than 20/30, intraocular pressure > 21 mm Hg, optic disc damage, a history of glaucoma, or shallow angles. The sensitivity and specificity of the automated visual field testing for identifying glaucoma was estimated and compared with other methods to screen for glaucoma. RESULTS. Of 5,341 subjects > or = 40 years of age who underwent a screening eye examination at neighborhood centers, 4,735 (89%) completed the automated field test. The median test time was 7.25 minutes per eye. Screening test results were abnormal in one or both eyes in 1,234 (26%) of the subjects. Kinetic perimetry was performed on 95% of these subjects, and defects were confirmed for 448 (36%) of them. Hence, 9.5% of the 4,735 subjects who completed the automated test were referred for definitive examination because the defect on automated perimetry was confirmed on manual testing. For a specificity of 90%, the sensitivity of the screening visual field test to detect glaucoma was 52% for 17 or more relative or absolute defects, higher than that of intraocular pressure at 39% for a cut-off of 20.5 mm Hg, vertical cup- to-disc ratio at 45% for a cut-off of 0.53, narrowest remaining rim width at 42% for a cut-off of 0.16, and was comparable to a combination of these and other nonfield parameters. CONCLUSION. Suprathreshold testing performed better than nonperimetry-based screening tests for glaucoma. However, a number of logistical weaknesses of this visual field screening method were identified.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. Mowatt, J. M. Burr, J. A. Cook, M. A. R. Siddiqui, C. Ramsay, C. Fraser, A. Azuara-Blanco, J. J. Deeks, and for the OAG Screening Project Screening Tests for Detecting Open-Angle Glaucoma: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., December 1, 2008; 49(12): 5373 - 5385. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R Stoutenbeek and N M Jansonius Glaucoma screening during regular optician visits: can the population at risk of developing glaucoma be reached? Br. J. Ophthalmol., October 1, 2006; 90(10): 1242 - 1244. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J.-P. Nordmann, M. Mesbah, and G. Berdeaux Scoring of Visual Field Measured through Humphrey Perimetry: Principal Component Varimax Rotation Followed by Validated Cluster Analysis Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., September 1, 2005; 46(9): 3169 - 3176. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. H. Artes, D. B. Henson, R. Harper, and D. McLeod Multisampling Suprathreshold Perimetry: A Comparison with Conventional Suprathreshold and Full-Threshold Strategies by Computer Simulation Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., June 1, 2003; 44(6): 2582 - 2587. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. H. Artes, D. McLeod, and D. B. Henson Response Time as a Discriminator between True- and False-Positive Responses in Suprathreshold Perimetry Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., January 1, 2002; 43(1): 129 - 132. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. R. Buhrmann, H. A. Quigley, Y. Barron, S. K. West, M. S. Oliva, and B. B. O. Mmbaga Prevalence of Glaucoma in a Rural East African Population Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., January 1, 2000; 41(1): 40 - 48. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				N. Yamada, P. P. Chen, R. P. Mills, M. M. Leen, M. F. Lieberman, R. L. Stamper, and D. C. Stanford Screening for Glaucoma With Frequency-Doubling Technology and Damato Campimetry Arch Ophthalmol, November 1, 1999; 117(11): 1479 - 1484. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Harper and B. Reeves Compliance with Methodological Standards When Evaluating Ophthalmic Diagnostic Tests Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., July 1, 1999; 40(8): 1650 - 1657. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]