PURPOSE: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the screening mode of the Humphrey-Welch Allyn frequency-doubling technology (FDT), Octopus tendency-oriented perimetry (TOP), and the Humphrey Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA)-fast (HSF) in patients with glaucoma. DESIGN: A comparative consecutive case series. METHODS: This was a prospective study which took place in the glaucoma unit of an academic department of ophthalmology. One eye of 70 consecutive glaucoma patients and 28 age-matched normal subjects was studied. Eyes were examined with the program C-20 of FDT, G1-TOP, and 24-2 HSF in one visit and in random order. The gold standard for glaucoma was presence of a typical glaucomatous optic disk appearance on stereoscopic examination, which was judged by a glaucoma expert. The sensitivity and specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of two algorithms for the FDT screening test, two algorithms for TOP, and three algorithms for HSF, as defined before the start of this study, were evaluated. The time required for each test was also analyzed. RESULTS: Values for area under the ROC curve ranged from 82.5%-93.9%. The largest area (93.9%) under the ROC curve was obtained with the FDT criteria, defining abnormality as presence of at least one abnormal location. Mean test time was 1.08 ± 0.28 minutes, 2.31 ± 0.28 minutes, and 4.14 ± 0.57 minutes for the FDT, TOP, and HSF, respectively. The difference in testing time was statistically significant (P <.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The C-20 FDT, G1-TOP, and 24-2 HSF appear to be useful tools to diagnose glaucoma. The test C-20 FDT and G1-TOP take approximately 1/4 and 1/2 of the time taken by 24 to 2 HSF.
Wadood, A. C., Taguri, A., King, A. J. W., Azuara-Blanco, A., & Aspinall, P. (2002). Sensitivity and specificity of frequency-doubling technology, tendency-oriented perimetry, and Humphrey Swedish interactive threshold algorithm-fast perimetry in a glaucoma practice. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 133(3), 327-332. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9394(01)01424-6