The Humphrey Matrix (FDT2) may be more sensitive in detecting glaucomatous visual field loss than SITA standard automated perimetry (SAP) performed on the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA). Therefore, FDT may be a good candidate to determine disease progression in patients with glaucoma. Our aim was to test the hypothesis that automated perimetry using the FDT2 would be equal to, or more effective than, HFA SITA-Standard, in identifying glaucomatous progression.
One hundred and twenty patients with glaucoma were tested twice at baseline and every 6 months for 4 years with HFA SITA-Standard and FDT2. FDT2 values were standardised to HFA SAP values. We used pointwise linear regression (PLR) over the full data series to identify glaucomatous progression and generated an array of results using three different criteria: (1) three or more clustered test locations progressing, (2) three or more non-clustered test locations progressing and (3) total number of progressing test locations. We compared HFA SAP and FDT2 for the number of locations signalled by the PLR detection algorithm.
Regardless of the criteria, HFA SAP with SITA-Standard testing detected visual field progression at a higher rate than the FDT2 overall (P<0.001).
HFA SAP identifies glaucomatous visual field progression at a rate at least as high if not higher than FDT2.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 November 2018.
All research outputs
#6,972,612
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Ophthalmology
#1,648
of 5,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,739
of 442,996 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Ophthalmology
#21
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 442,996 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
