Online circular contrast perimetry: The normative database of an Asian population
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study compared results of online circular contrast perimetry (OCCP) versus standard automated perimetry (SAP) in clinic, as well as clinic OCCP versus home OCCP in a normal Asian population. Healthy participants underwent a comprehensive ocular examination, retinal nerve fiber layer optical coherence tomography scan, and visual field tests performed in clinic, using OCCP and SAP. Within a week, participants were asked to repeat OCCP field test at home. 58 eyes of 29 healthy volunteers were selected. At the clinic, no difference between testing duration and fixation loss of SAP and OCCP was detected. False Positive (FP) rate of OCCP (3.57%) was significantly higher than SAP (1.07%, p < 0.001) while False Negative (FN) of SAP (1.64%) was significantly higher than those of OCCP (0.48%, p = 0.0225). In clinic OCCP compared to SAP revealed no significant difference in Mean Deviation (MD) (-0.29dB, p = 0.0825), and small differences in Pattern Standard Deviation (PSD) (-0.60dB, p = 0.0001) and Visual Index (VI)/Visual Field Index (VFI) (1.26%, p = 0.0199). Among 29 healthy participants, 15 people with 30 eyes completed home OCCP tests. Comparing in clinic and at-home OCCP, no significant difference between test duration, FP, FN, FL of was found. Small but significant improvements in OCCP MD (0.79dB, p = 0.0008), VI (1.63%, p = 0.0043), but not PSD (-0.45dB, p = 0.1609) were detected. Comparable outcomes between OCCP and SAP in clinic as well as between OCCP in clinic and OCCP at home were found in a normal Asian population.
Article Details
Keywords
online circular contrast perimetry, normal, healthy
References
2. Racette L, Liebmann JM, Girkin CA, et al. African Descent and Glaucoma Evaluation Study (ADAGES): III. Ancestry differences in visual function in healthy eyes. Archives of ophthalmology (Chicago, Ill : 1960). May 2010;128(5):551-9.
3. Nakano T, Takahashi G, Demirel S, et al. Investigation of racial differences in responsiveness to frequency doubling technology (FDT) perimetry in normal subjects. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 2004;45(13):2136-2136.
4. Halawa OA, Jin Q, Pasquale LR, et al. Race and Ethnicity Differences in Disease Severity and Visual Field Progression Among Glaucoma Patients. American journal of ophthalmology. 2022;242:69-76.
5. Stagg B, Mariottoni EB, Berchuck S, et al. Longitudinal visual field variability and the ability to detect glaucoma progression in black and white individuals. Br J Ophthalmol. Aug 2022;106(8):1115-1120.
6. Grisafe DJ, McKean-Cowdin R, Burkemper BS, et al. Visual Field Loss Impacts Vision-Specific Quality of Life by Race and Ethnicity: The Multiethnic Ophthalmology Cohorts of California Study. Ophthalmology. Jun 2022;129(6):668-678.
7. Meyerov J, Deng Y, Busija L, et al. Circular Contrast Perimetry via Web Application: A Patient Appraisal and Comparison to Standard Automated Perimetry. Ophthalmology science. Sep 2022;2(3):100172.
8. Chen YX, Meyerov J, Skalicky SE. Online Circular Contrast Perimetry via a Web-Application: Establishing a Normative Database for Central 10-Degree Perimetry. Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, NZ). 2024;18:201-213.
9. Meyerov J, Deng Y, Busija L, et al. Online Circular Contrast Perimetry: A Comparison to Standard Automated Perimetry. Asia-Pacific journal of ophthalmology (Philadelphia, Pa). 2023;12(1):4-15.
10. Meyerov J CYX, Green C, Busija L, et al. Online Circular Contrast Perimetry: repeatability in comparison to Standard Automated Perimetry. Journal of Glaucoma. 2024.
11. Heijl A, Patella VM, Flanagan JG, et al. False Positive Responses in Standard Automated Perimetry. American journal of ophthalmology. Jan 2022;233:180-188.
12. Groth SL, Linton EF, Brown EN, et al. Evaluation of Virtual Reality Perimetry and Standard Automated Perimetry in Normal Children. Translational vision science & technology. Jan 3 2023;12(1):6.
13. Wang B, Alvarez-Falcón S, El-Dairi M, et al. Performance of virtual reality game-based automated perimetry in patients with childhood glaucoma. J aapos. Dec 2023;27(6):325.e1-325.e6.
14. Jones PR, Campbell P, Callaghan T, et al. Glaucoma Home Monitoring Using a Tablet-Based Visual Field Test (Eyecatcher): An Assessment of Accuracy and Adherence Over 6 Months. American journal of ophthalmology. Mar 2021;223:42-52.
15. Che Hamzah J, Daka Q, Azuara-Blanco A. Home monitoring for glaucoma. Eye (London, England). Jan 2020;34(1):155-160.
16. Stagg BC, Stein JD, Medeiros FA, et al. The Frequency of Visual Field Testing in a US Nationwide Cohort of Individuals with Open-Angle Glaucoma. Ophthalmol Glaucoma. Nov-Dec 2022;5(6):587-593.
17. Anderson AJ, Bedggood PA, George Kong YX, et al. Can Home Monitoring Allow Earlier Detection of Rapid Visual Field Progression in Glaucoma? Ophthalmology. Dec 2017;124(12):1735-1742.
18. Chia ZK, Kong AW, Turner ML, et al. Assessment of Remote Training, At-Home Testing, and Test-Retest Variability of a Novel Test for Clustered Virtual Reality Perimetry. Ophthalmol Glaucoma. Aug 22 2023.
19. Tsapakis S, Papaconstantinou D, Diagourtas A, et al. Home-based visual field test for glaucoma screening comparison with Humphrey perimeter. Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, NZ). 2018;12:2597-2606.