Comparative Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Standard and Non-standard Computer Perimetry Methods in the Early Diagnosis of Glaucoma
Purpose: tо compare the effectiveness of standard automated perimetry (SAP) and two non-standard perimetry methods in the diagnosis of the early stage primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). Patients and methods. The study involved 18 patients (32 eyes) with the early POAG, 10 women, 8 men (average age...
Saved in:
Published in | Oftalmologii͡a Vol. 22; no. 2; pp. 383 - 390 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English Russian |
Published |
Ophthalmology Publishing Group
27.06.2025
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
ISSN | 1816-5095 2500-0845 |
DOI | 10.18008/1816-5095-2025-2-383-390 |
Cover
Abstract | Purpose: tо compare the effectiveness of standard automated perimetry (SAP) and two non-standard perimetry methods in the diagnosis of the early stage primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG).
Patients and methods. The study involved 18 patients (32 eyes) with the early POAG, 10 women, 8 men (average age of 56.2 ± 1.4 years). The control group included 32 healthy people (32 eyes), (average age of 56.4 ± 3.9 years). In addition to the routine ophthalmic examination all subjects underwent SAP (Octopus 900, threshold strategy “G TOP”) and two methods of non-standard perimetry — the author’s own modification of Frequency Doubling Technology (FDT) Perimetry (threshold strategies “FDT-16” and “FDT-64”) and Pulsar perimetry (Octopus 600). Morphometric assessment of the optic nerve head was performed using stereoophthalmoscopy and retinotomography (Heidelberg Retina Tomograph 3 and RTVue FD-OCT). Optical coherence tomography was also used to assess the parameters of the retinal ganglion cell complex in the macular region.
Results. Evaluating the sensitivity level of these 4 compared strategies (“FDT-16”, “FDT-64”, “Pulsar” Octopus 600 and “G TOP” Octopus 900) in patients with the early stage of POAG by mean MD index (87.1, 93.55, 54.84 and 80.65 % respectively) and by mean number of 10×10° squares with scotomas in the central visual field (90.32, 98.77, 51.61, and 83.87 % respectively) showed that both threshold FDT perimetry strategies were 7 to 15 % higher than the sensitivity of Octopus 900 (“G TOP”) and almost 2 times higher than the sensitivity of Octopus 600 (“Pulsar”). The specificity level of all three threshold strategies (“FDT-16”, “FDT-64” and “Pulsar”) of both non-standard perimetry methods was 100 %, and specificity level of SAP was 96.77 %. The correlation between the values of the MD index and the number of squares with scotomas in the central visual field according to the SAP data and all three threshold strategies data of the two non-standard perimetry methods was moderate and statistically significant.
Conclusion. For diagnosis of early POAG a combination of standard and non-standard computer perimetry methods is advisable. Both FDT perimetry strategies had a significant advantage in the sensitivity level of their results compared to Pulsar perimetry data. |
---|---|
AbstractList | Purpose: tо compare the effectiveness of standard automated perimetry (SAP) and two non-standard perimetry methods in the diagnosis of the early stage primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG).Patients and methods. The study involved 18 patients (32 eyes) with the early POAG, 10 women, 8 men (average age of 56.2 ± 1.4 years). The control group included 32 healthy people (32 eyes), (average age of 56.4 ± 3.9 years). In addition to the routine ophthalmic examination all subjects underwent SAP (Octopus 900, threshold strategy “G TOP”) and two methods of non-standard perimetry — the author’s own modification of Frequency Doubling Technology (FDT) Perimetry (threshold strategies “FDT-16” and “FDT-64”) and Pulsar perimetry (Octopus 600). Morphometric assessment of the optic nerve head was performed using stereoophthalmoscopy and retinotomography (Heidelberg Retina Tomograph 3 and RTVue FD-OCT). Optical coherence tomography was also used to assess the parameters of the retinal ganglion cell complex in the macular region.Results. Evaluating the sensitivity level of these 4 compared strategies (“FDT-16”, “FDT-64”, “Pulsar” Octopus 600 and “G TOP” Octopus 900) in patients with the early stage of POAG by mean MD index (87.1, 93.55, 54.84 and 80.65 % respectively) and by mean number of 10×10° squares with scotomas in the central visual field (90.32, 98.77, 51.61, and 83.87 % respectively) showed that both threshold FDT perimetry strategies were 7 to 15 % higher than the sensitivity of Octopus 900 (“G TOP”) and almost 2 times higher than the sensitivity of Octopus 600 (“Pulsar”). The specificity level of all three threshold strategies (“FDT-16”, “FDT-64” and “Pulsar”) of both non-standard perimetry methods was 100 %, and specificity level of SAP was 96.77 %. The correlation between the values of the MD index and the number of squares with scotomas in the central visual field according to the SAP data and all three threshold strategies data of the two non-standard perimetry methods was moderate and statistically significant.Conclusion. For diagnosis of early POAG a combination of standard and non-standard computer perimetry methods is advisable. Both FDT perimetry strategies had a significant advantage in the sensitivity level of their results compared to Pulsar perimetry data. Purpose: tо compare the effectiveness of standard automated perimetry (SAP) and two non-standard perimetry methods in the diagnosis of the early stage primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). Patients and methods. The study involved 18 patients (32 eyes) with the early POAG, 10 women, 8 men (average age of 56.2 ± 1.4 years). The control group included 32 healthy people (32 eyes), (average age of 56.4 ± 3.9 years). In addition to the routine ophthalmic examination all subjects underwent SAP (Octopus 900, threshold strategy “G TOP”) and two methods of non-standard perimetry — the author’s own modification of Frequency Doubling Technology (FDT) Perimetry (threshold strategies “FDT-16” and “FDT-64”) and Pulsar perimetry (Octopus 600). Morphometric assessment of the optic nerve head was performed using stereoophthalmoscopy and retinotomography (Heidelberg Retina Tomograph 3 and RTVue FD-OCT). Optical coherence tomography was also used to assess the parameters of the retinal ganglion cell complex in the macular region. Results. Evaluating the sensitivity level of these 4 compared strategies (“FDT-16”, “FDT-64”, “Pulsar” Octopus 600 and “G TOP” Octopus 900) in patients with the early stage of POAG by mean MD index (87.1, 93.55, 54.84 and 80.65 % respectively) and by mean number of 10×10° squares with scotomas in the central visual field (90.32, 98.77, 51.61, and 83.87 % respectively) showed that both threshold FDT perimetry strategies were 7 to 15 % higher than the sensitivity of Octopus 900 (“G TOP”) and almost 2 times higher than the sensitivity of Octopus 600 (“Pulsar”). The specificity level of all three threshold strategies (“FDT-16”, “FDT-64” and “Pulsar”) of both non-standard perimetry methods was 100 %, and specificity level of SAP was 96.77 %. The correlation between the values of the MD index and the number of squares with scotomas in the central visual field according to the SAP data and all three threshold strategies data of the two non-standard perimetry methods was moderate and statistically significant. Conclusion. For diagnosis of early POAG a combination of standard and non-standard computer perimetry methods is advisable. Both FDT perimetry strategies had a significant advantage in the sensitivity level of their results compared to Pulsar perimetry data. |
Author | Serdyukova, S. A. Kulikov, A. N. Simakova, I. L. Tikhonovskay, I. A. |
Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: I. L. orcidid: 0000-0001-8389-0421 surname: Simakova fullname: Simakova, I. L. organization: S.M. Kirov Military Medical Academy – sequence: 2 givenname: A. N. orcidid: 0000-0002-5274-6993 surname: Kulikov fullname: Kulikov, A. N. organization: S.M. Kirov Military Medical Academy – sequence: 3 givenname: S. A. orcidid: 0009-0007-5255-2041 surname: Serdyukova fullname: Serdyukova, S. A. organization: S.M. Kirov Military Medical Academy – sequence: 4 givenname: I. A. orcidid: 0000-0002-7518-8437 surname: Tikhonovskay fullname: Tikhonovskay, I. A. organization: S.M. Kirov Military Medical Academy |
BookMark | eNo9keFq3DAMx83oYLeu75A9gDfZTmL747h1XaHrBts-G8WW25RcXOxc4V6gz13nbisISfwlfgj937OzOc3E2EcBn4QBMJ-FET3vwHZcgqyJK6O4svCGbWQHwMG03RnbvK69YxelPACA6IQQst-w523aPWLGZXyi5vIJp31t09yk2Cz3VYmR_DqbqZRV_L3gHDCHppbmNs28_BdW0H6h3PyiPO5oyYfmBy33KZRmnE8wzNOh-Tri3ZzKeMRdTbj3aYcf2NuIU6GLf_Wc_f12-Wf7nd_8vLrefrnhXvQaeLTBIESlfNchkqdgrLHkNYqgo9AD6mBa0CA9dVoIINOjHVBY2Q9Kkjpn1yduSPjgHuuhmA8u4eiOQsp3DvMy-omcD9APAmq01A6-N0rrXtoWVYgSyVSWPbF8TqVkiq88Ae7oj1sf79bHu9UfJ131x1V_1Avp1Ic5 |
Cites_doi | 10.2147/OPTH.S64684 10.1167/iovs.12-10892 10.53432/2078-4104-2023-22-4-33-43 10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.04.009 10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.12.014 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2015.4459 10.3109/08820538.2016.1157611 10.3390/jcm10245825 10.1155/2020/4687398 10.4103/ijo.IJO_157_17 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-310731 10.1016/j.ajo.2009.07.020 10.1167/iovs.03-0374 10.17816/OV11154-65 10.4103/0301-4738.126188 10.22625/2072-6732-2016-8-4-36-45 10.1097/ICU.0b013e32835cf078 10.1016/0002-9394(89)90488-1 10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.08.009 10.1177/112067210401400611 10.7869/djo.761 10.53432/2078-4104-2022-21-1-23-35 10.1136/bmjophth-2023-001256 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000782 10.1136/bjo.2006.110437 10.1097/01.ijg.0000197089.53354.6f |
ContentType | Journal Article |
DBID | AAYXX CITATION DOA |
DOI | 10.18008/1816-5095-2025-2-383-390 |
DatabaseName | CrossRef DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals |
DatabaseTitle | CrossRef |
DatabaseTitleList | CrossRef |
Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: DOA name: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals url: https://www.doaj.org/ sourceTypes: Open Website |
DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
Discipline | Medicine |
EISSN | 2500-0845 |
EndPage | 390 |
ExternalDocumentID | oai_doaj_org_article_cd06b10b104e4bc683776294a3df2ae8 10_18008_1816_5095_2025_2_383_390 |
GroupedDBID | 5VS AAYXX ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS CITATION GROUPED_DOAJ KQ8 |
ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c1670-f9d8a0f33c55aaeced8989ec7a1d7f17ba7d840702ce57110e86a9ba1926b32e3 |
IEDL.DBID | DOA |
ISSN | 1816-5095 |
IngestDate | Wed Aug 27 01:28:53 EDT 2025 Thu Jul 10 08:32:06 EDT 2025 |
IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
IsOpenAccess | true |
IsPeerReviewed | true |
IsScholarly | true |
Issue | 2 |
Language | English Russian |
License | https://www.ophthalmojournal.com/opht/about/editorialPolicies#openAccessPolicy |
LinkModel | DirectLink |
MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c1670-f9d8a0f33c55aaeced8989ec7a1d7f17ba7d840702ce57110e86a9ba1926b32e3 |
ORCID | 0000-0001-8389-0421 0000-0002-7518-8437 0009-0007-5255-2041 0000-0002-5274-6993 |
OpenAccessLink | https://doaj.org/article/cd06b10b104e4bc683776294a3df2ae8 |
PageCount | 8 |
ParticipantIDs | doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_cd06b10b104e4bc683776294a3df2ae8 crossref_primary_10_18008_1816_5095_2025_2_383_390 |
PublicationCentury | 2000 |
PublicationDate | 2025-06-27 |
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2025-06-27 |
PublicationDate_xml | – month: 06 year: 2025 text: 2025-06-27 day: 27 |
PublicationDecade | 2020 |
PublicationTitle | Oftalmologii͡a |
PublicationYear | 2025 |
Publisher | Ophthalmology Publishing Group |
Publisher_xml | – name: Ophthalmology Publishing Group |
References | ref13 ref35 ref12 ref34 ref15 ref14 ref31 ref30 ref11 ref33 ref10 ref32 ref2 ref1 ref17 ref16 ref19 ref18 ref24 ref23 ref26 ref25 ref20 ref22 ref21 ref28 ref27 ref29 ref8 ref7 ref9 ref4 ref3 ref6 ref5 |
References_xml | – ident: ref3 – ident: ref16 doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S64684 – ident: ref5 – ident: ref15 doi: 10.1167/iovs.12-10892 – ident: ref7 – ident: ref22 doi: 10.53432/2078-4104-2023-22-4-33-43 – ident: ref18 doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.04.009 – ident: ref29 – ident: ref32 doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.12.014 – ident: ref17 doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2015.4459 – ident: ref12 doi: 10.3109/08820538.2016.1157611 – ident: ref25 doi: 10.3390/jcm10245825 – ident: ref21 doi: 10.1155/2020/4687398 – ident: ref33 doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_157_17 – ident: ref34 doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-310731 – ident: ref27 doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2009.07.020 – ident: ref4 – ident: ref6 doi: 10.1167/iovs.03-0374 – ident: ref9 doi: 10.17816/OV11154-65 – ident: ref2 – ident: ref30 doi: 10.4103/0301-4738.126188 – ident: ref28 doi: 10.22625/2072-6732-2016-8-4-36-45 – ident: ref20 doi: 10.1097/ICU.0b013e32835cf078 – ident: ref1 doi: 10.1016/0002-9394(89)90488-1 – ident: ref19 doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.08.009 – ident: ref23 doi: 10.1177/112067210401400611 – ident: ref24 doi: 10.7869/djo.761 – ident: ref8 – ident: ref10 doi: 10.53432/2078-4104-2022-21-1-23-35 – ident: ref26 doi: 10.1136/bmjophth-2023-001256 – ident: ref35 doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000782 – ident: ref11 doi: 10.1136/bjo.2006.110437 – ident: ref13 doi: 10.1097/01.ijg.0000197089.53354.6f – ident: ref14 – ident: ref31 |
SSID | ssj0001511126 |
Score | 2.2991943 |
Snippet | Purpose: tо compare the effectiveness of standard automated perimetry (SAP) and two non-standard perimetry methods in the diagnosis of the early stage primary... |
SourceID | doaj crossref |
SourceType | Open Website Index Database |
StartPage | 383 |
SubjectTerms | early diagnosis of glaucoma fdt perimetry pulsar perimetry standard and non-standard perimetry |
Title | Comparative Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Standard and Non-standard Computer Perimetry Methods in the Early Diagnosis of Glaucoma |
URI | https://doaj.org/article/cd06b10b104e4bc683776294a3df2ae8 |
Volume | 22 |
hasFullText | 1 |
inHoldings | 1 |
isFullTextHit | |
isPrint | |
link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV1LS8NAEF6kh-JFfGJ9sYLXpcnuJpsctbYWoUXQQm_LPqEgrdT24B_wdzuTpLU3L0JIYCFL-DKZnW8z8w0hd9iTO1ciMBmFAIISBbOxlIxHW8jMRysE1juPxvlwIp-n2XSn1RfmhNXywDVwXeeT3KYJHDJI63IgVPD9ltIIH7kJVZlvUiY7ZKquD06xNgbZVpHmDFbFrE1u0UNAgFR0t4NgJBxODHgaE-iXdxanHQ3_arEZHJKDJkqk9_XTHZG95fqYtEfNf_AT8t37Fe2m_a1gN11ECgEdrSWJGz-Gg6_NhgGFCx0v5myzg0A3XR3oSyX0v1p-0VHVVPqTzub1ZCiBTB_rlLxZNd3Tu1mDpZpTMhn033pD1nRUYC7NVcJi6QsD70O4LDMmuOCxe2RwyqRexVRZozwwPpVwFzIFkUEoclNaA2FgbgUP4oy05ot5OCc0dSEJ3ijlopTRWsOF5E5aD85fpFx1CN9AqT9q4QyNhAPx14i_Rvw14q-5Bvw14N8hDwj69gbUvq4GwCJ0YxH6L4u4-I9JLsk-Fxnm7DGurkhrtVyHawg_VvamsrQf_L_Uxw |
linkProvider | Directory of Open Access Journals |
openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparative+Evaluation+of+the+Effectiveness+of+Standard+and+Non-standard+Computer+Perimetry+Methods+in+the+Early+Diagnosis+of+Glaucoma&rft.jtitle=Oftalmologii%CD%A1a&rft.au=Simakova%2C+I.+L.&rft.au=Kulikov%2C+A.+N.&rft.au=Serdyukova%2C+S.+A.&rft.au=Tikhonovskay%2C+I.+A.&rft.date=2025-06-27&rft.issn=1816-5095&rft.eissn=2500-0845&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=383&rft.epage=390&rft_id=info:doi/10.18008%2F1816-5095-2025-2-383-390&rft.externalDBID=n%2Fa&rft.externalDocID=10_18008_1816_5095_2025_2_383_390 |
thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1816-5095&client=summon |
thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1816-5095&client=summon |
thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1816-5095&client=summon |