Comparison of Peristat Online Perimetry with the Humphrey Perimetry in a Clinic-Based Setting
Lowry, Eugene A.
Chang, Robert T.
Wang, Sean K.
MetadataShow full item record
CitationLowry, Eugene A., Jing Hou, Lauren Hennein, Robert T. Chang, Shan Lin, Jeremy Keenan, Sean K. Wang, Sean Ianchulev, Louis R. Pasquale, and Ying Han. 2016. “Comparison of Peristat Online Perimetry with the Humphrey Perimetry in a Clinic-Based Setting.” Translational Vision Science & Technology 5 (4): 4. doi:10.1167/tvst.5.4.4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/tvst.5.4.4.
AbstractPurpose We determined the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for Peristat online perimetry at detecting varying degrees of glaucoma and the correlation between Peristat online perimetry and Humphrey visual field. Methods: A prospective, comparative study of Peristat online perimetry (an achromatic static computer threshold testing program) and Humphrey visual field (HVF) 24-2 SITA standard testing was performed by 63 glaucoma patients and 30 healthy controls in random order. The number of total adjacent abnormal test points were identified for each test, and compared with Spearman correlation. Receive operating characteristic curves were generated for Peristat online perimetry detection of mild and moderate-severe glaucoma patients using contrast sensitivity thresholds of −16.7, −21.7, and −26.7 dB. Results: The area under the ROC curve for glaucoma detection ranged from 0.77 to 0.81 for mild disease (mean deviation [MD], >−6 dB on HVF) and 0.85 to 0.87 for moderate to severe disease (MD, <−6 dB on HVF) depending on contrast threshold. Peristat online perimetry and Humphrey visual field abnormal points were highly correlated with Spearman rank correlations ranging from 0.55 to 0.77 (all P < 0.001). Conclusions: Peristat online perimetry exhibits a reasonable ROC curve without specialized equipment and exhibited significant correlation with the conventional 24° Humphrey visual field test. Translational Relevance Low cost widely available internet-based visual fields may complement traditional office-based visual field testing.
Citable link to this pagehttp://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:29002465
- HMS Scholarly Articles