Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

Comparison of standard white-on-white automated perimetry and short-wavelength automated perimetry in early glaucoma patients.

Authors: Wei-Wen, Su; Shiu-Chen, Wu; Shirley H L, Chang; Su-Chin, Shen;

Comparison of standard white-on-white automated perimetry and short-wavelength automated perimetry in early glaucoma patients.

Abstract

To evaluate the relationship between short-wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP) and the standard white-on-white automated perimetry (W-W) in detection of early glaucomatous visual field deficits.Twenty-four patients suspected of having glaucoma and who had experience with automated visual field tests were evaluated by SWAP and standard W-W perimetry. Results of the mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), pattern deviation probability plot, test reliability, and test time were compared.The average MD in the SWAP group was significantly higher than that in the W-W group (SWAP: -6.55 db, W-W: -2.69 db, p<0.001). A significant difference also existed in PSD between the 2 groups (SWAP: 3.49 db, W-W: 2.40 db, p<0.001). The test time was longer in the SWAP group than in the W-W group (SWAP: 15 min, 6 s; W-W: 13 min, 8 s, p<0.001). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in test reliability or in the number of points that were depressed below the 1% and 5% sensitivity levels on the pattern deviation probability plot.This study showed that greater MD and PSD were demonstrated with SWAP. The test time was longer for SWAP. However, in order to conclude that SWAP is an early indicator of glaucomatous damage, longer follow-up and further analyses are required.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Adult, Male, Adolescent, Humans, Visual Field Tests, Female, Glaucoma, Prospective Studies, Middle Aged

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    2
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
2
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!