Comparison of Compass and Humphrey perimeters in detecting glaucomatous defects

Paolo Fogagnolo, Antonio Modarelli, Francesco Oddone, Maurizio Digiuni, Giovanni Montesano, Nicola Orzalesi, Luca Rossetti

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the performance of Compass fundus automated perimetry (FAP) and Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) in glaucoma patients. Methods: A total of 120 patients with glaucoma underwent 1 FAP and 1 HFA perimetric test over the central 24° on one eye. The chosen eye and sequence were randomized and only reliable examinations were considered for analysis. Mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), visual field index (VFI), and the area of absolute scotoma were compared between perimeters. Glaucoma Staging System (GSS2) data were analyzed by means of k test. Results: Mean sensitivity difference (FAP-HFA) was -1.0 ± 2.81 dB (p<0.001, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.61, -0.60 dB), MD difference was +0.27 ± 2.84 dB (p = 0.36, 95% CI -5.30, 5.83 dB), PSD difference was +0.48 ± 1.95 dB (p = 0.0075, 95% CI -3.37, 4.33 dB), and VFI difference was +2.4% ± 8.4% (p = 0.003, 95% CI -14.0%, +18.8% dB). Weighted kappa for GSS2 was 0.87. Points with null sensitivities were 9.9 ± 10.2 with FAP and 8.2 ± 8.9 with HFA (difference: 1.7 ± 4.0 points, p = 0.013). Conclusions: Mean sensitivity with FAP is 1 dB lower than HFA, a finding due to different threshold strategies. Differences of global indices for FAP and HFA are small, which makes the 2 perimeters equivalent in the clinical setting. However, FAP seems more severe in evaluating glaucomatous damage, with absolute scotoma areas larger than with HFA. We raise the hypothesis that such difference may be the result of the active compensation of eye movements available with FAP.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)598-606
Number of pages9
JournalEuropean Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume26
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 1 2016

Fingerprint

Visual Field Tests
Glaucoma
Confidence Intervals
Scotoma
Visual Fields
Eye Movements
Information Systems

Keywords

  • Eye-tracking
  • Fixation analysis
  • Perimetry
  • Scotoma analysis
  • Test-retest variability

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Fogagnolo, P., Modarelli, A., Oddone, F., Digiuni, M., Montesano, G., Orzalesi, N., & Rossetti, L. (2016). Comparison of Compass and Humphrey perimeters in detecting glaucomatous defects. European Journal of Ophthalmology, 26(6), 598-606. https://doi.org/10.5301/ejo.5000821

Comparison of Compass and Humphrey perimeters in detecting glaucomatous defects. / Fogagnolo, Paolo; Modarelli, Antonio; Oddone, Francesco; Digiuni, Maurizio; Montesano, Giovanni; Orzalesi, Nicola; Rossetti, Luca.

In: European Journal of Ophthalmology, Vol. 26, No. 6, 01.11.2016, p. 598-606.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Fogagnolo, P, Modarelli, A, Oddone, F, Digiuni, M, Montesano, G, Orzalesi, N & Rossetti, L 2016, 'Comparison of Compass and Humphrey perimeters in detecting glaucomatous defects', European Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 598-606. https://doi.org/10.5301/ejo.5000821
Fogagnolo, Paolo ; Modarelli, Antonio ; Oddone, Francesco ; Digiuni, Maurizio ; Montesano, Giovanni ; Orzalesi, Nicola ; Rossetti, Luca. / Comparison of Compass and Humphrey perimeters in detecting glaucomatous defects. In: European Journal of Ophthalmology. 2016 ; Vol. 26, No. 6. pp. 598-606.
@article{f1d126cdf82c423d808add7465647544,
title = "Comparison of Compass and Humphrey perimeters in detecting glaucomatous defects",
abstract = "Purpose: To compare the performance of Compass fundus automated perimetry (FAP) and Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) in glaucoma patients. Methods: A total of 120 patients with glaucoma underwent 1 FAP and 1 HFA perimetric test over the central 24° on one eye. The chosen eye and sequence were randomized and only reliable examinations were considered for analysis. Mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), visual field index (VFI), and the area of absolute scotoma were compared between perimeters. Glaucoma Staging System (GSS2) data were analyzed by means of k test. Results: Mean sensitivity difference (FAP-HFA) was -1.0 ± 2.81 dB (p<0.001, 95{\%} confidence interval [CI] -1.61, -0.60 dB), MD difference was +0.27 ± 2.84 dB (p = 0.36, 95{\%} CI -5.30, 5.83 dB), PSD difference was +0.48 ± 1.95 dB (p = 0.0075, 95{\%} CI -3.37, 4.33 dB), and VFI difference was +2.4{\%} ± 8.4{\%} (p = 0.003, 95{\%} CI -14.0{\%}, +18.8{\%} dB). Weighted kappa for GSS2 was 0.87. Points with null sensitivities were 9.9 ± 10.2 with FAP and 8.2 ± 8.9 with HFA (difference: 1.7 ± 4.0 points, p = 0.013). Conclusions: Mean sensitivity with FAP is 1 dB lower than HFA, a finding due to different threshold strategies. Differences of global indices for FAP and HFA are small, which makes the 2 perimeters equivalent in the clinical setting. However, FAP seems more severe in evaluating glaucomatous damage, with absolute scotoma areas larger than with HFA. We raise the hypothesis that such difference may be the result of the active compensation of eye movements available with FAP.",
keywords = "Eye-tracking, Fixation analysis, Perimetry, Scotoma analysis, Test-retest variability",
author = "Paolo Fogagnolo and Antonio Modarelli and Francesco Oddone and Maurizio Digiuni and Giovanni Montesano and Nicola Orzalesi and Luca Rossetti",
year = "2016",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.5301/ejo.5000821",
language = "English",
volume = "26",
pages = "598--606",
journal = "European Journal of Ophthalmology",
issn = "1120-6721",
publisher = "Wichtig Publishing",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of Compass and Humphrey perimeters in detecting glaucomatous defects

AU - Fogagnolo, Paolo

AU - Modarelli, Antonio

AU - Oddone, Francesco

AU - Digiuni, Maurizio

AU - Montesano, Giovanni

AU - Orzalesi, Nicola

AU - Rossetti, Luca

PY - 2016/11/1

Y1 - 2016/11/1

N2 - Purpose: To compare the performance of Compass fundus automated perimetry (FAP) and Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) in glaucoma patients. Methods: A total of 120 patients with glaucoma underwent 1 FAP and 1 HFA perimetric test over the central 24° on one eye. The chosen eye and sequence were randomized and only reliable examinations were considered for analysis. Mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), visual field index (VFI), and the area of absolute scotoma were compared between perimeters. Glaucoma Staging System (GSS2) data were analyzed by means of k test. Results: Mean sensitivity difference (FAP-HFA) was -1.0 ± 2.81 dB (p<0.001, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.61, -0.60 dB), MD difference was +0.27 ± 2.84 dB (p = 0.36, 95% CI -5.30, 5.83 dB), PSD difference was +0.48 ± 1.95 dB (p = 0.0075, 95% CI -3.37, 4.33 dB), and VFI difference was +2.4% ± 8.4% (p = 0.003, 95% CI -14.0%, +18.8% dB). Weighted kappa for GSS2 was 0.87. Points with null sensitivities were 9.9 ± 10.2 with FAP and 8.2 ± 8.9 with HFA (difference: 1.7 ± 4.0 points, p = 0.013). Conclusions: Mean sensitivity with FAP is 1 dB lower than HFA, a finding due to different threshold strategies. Differences of global indices for FAP and HFA are small, which makes the 2 perimeters equivalent in the clinical setting. However, FAP seems more severe in evaluating glaucomatous damage, with absolute scotoma areas larger than with HFA. We raise the hypothesis that such difference may be the result of the active compensation of eye movements available with FAP.

AB - Purpose: To compare the performance of Compass fundus automated perimetry (FAP) and Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) in glaucoma patients. Methods: A total of 120 patients with glaucoma underwent 1 FAP and 1 HFA perimetric test over the central 24° on one eye. The chosen eye and sequence were randomized and only reliable examinations were considered for analysis. Mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), visual field index (VFI), and the area of absolute scotoma were compared between perimeters. Glaucoma Staging System (GSS2) data were analyzed by means of k test. Results: Mean sensitivity difference (FAP-HFA) was -1.0 ± 2.81 dB (p<0.001, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.61, -0.60 dB), MD difference was +0.27 ± 2.84 dB (p = 0.36, 95% CI -5.30, 5.83 dB), PSD difference was +0.48 ± 1.95 dB (p = 0.0075, 95% CI -3.37, 4.33 dB), and VFI difference was +2.4% ± 8.4% (p = 0.003, 95% CI -14.0%, +18.8% dB). Weighted kappa for GSS2 was 0.87. Points with null sensitivities were 9.9 ± 10.2 with FAP and 8.2 ± 8.9 with HFA (difference: 1.7 ± 4.0 points, p = 0.013). Conclusions: Mean sensitivity with FAP is 1 dB lower than HFA, a finding due to different threshold strategies. Differences of global indices for FAP and HFA are small, which makes the 2 perimeters equivalent in the clinical setting. However, FAP seems more severe in evaluating glaucomatous damage, with absolute scotoma areas larger than with HFA. We raise the hypothesis that such difference may be the result of the active compensation of eye movements available with FAP.

KW - Eye-tracking

KW - Fixation analysis

KW - Perimetry

KW - Scotoma analysis

KW - Test-retest variability

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84994531670&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84994531670&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.5301/ejo.5000821

DO - 10.5301/ejo.5000821

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84994531670

VL - 26

SP - 598

EP - 606

JO - European Journal of Ophthalmology

JF - European Journal of Ophthalmology

SN - 1120-6721

IS - 6

ER -