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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inOftalmologii͡a Vol. 22; no. 2; pp. 383 - 390
Main Authors Simakova, I. L., Kulikov, A. N., Serdyukova, S. A., Tikhonovskay, I. A.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Russian
Published Ophthalmology Publishing Group 27.06.2025
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN1816-5095
2500-0845
DOI10.18008/1816-5095-2025-2-383-390

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