Loading…
Performance of the 24-2-5 frequency doubling technology screening test: a prospective case study
Aim:To evaluate the performance of the frequency doubling technology (FDT) 24-2-5 screening test by comparison with the established N-30-5 FDT screening test for detection of glaucoma.Method:A prospective random sample of individuals referred for possible glaucoma were tested with FDT screening test...
Saved in:
Published in: | British journal of ophthalmology 2007-10, Vol.91 (10), p.1345-1349 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b588t-e8b1779cfefcea5d78c242bb8bc971e0624c0f00e04b9b752561cda31006b2503 |
---|---|
cites | |
container_end_page | 1349 |
container_issue | 10 |
container_start_page | 1345 |
container_title | British journal of ophthalmology |
container_volume | 91 |
creator | Spry, P G D Hussin, H M Sparrow, J M |
description | Aim:To evaluate the performance of the frequency doubling technology (FDT) 24-2-5 screening test by comparison with the established N-30-5 FDT screening test for detection of glaucoma.Method:A prospective random sample of individuals referred for possible glaucoma were tested with FDT screening tests 24-2-5 and N-30-5 using the Humphrey Matrix perimeter in addition to standard clinical examination relevant to glaucoma detection. Discriminatory power, reliability and test time of these tests were assessed and compared. The case definition for glaucoma was made by patient according to the established clinical diagnosis.Results:Of 63 referred eligible individuals, 53 (84%) were recruited. Sensitivity and specificity for the N-30-5 screening test was 78 and 85% respectively, compared with 83% and 75% for the 24-2-5 with areas under a receiver operator characteristic curve being 0.87 and 0.92. Differences between these indices were not statistically significant. For a specificity of 95%, sensitivity values were 76% and 56% for the 24-2-5 and N-30-5 respectively. Mean (standard deviation) test duration for the FDT 24-2-5 and N-30-5 screening tests were 111 (13) and 39 (10) seconds respectively (p |
doi_str_mv | 10.1136/bjo.2007.115436 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2001013</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>68316280</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b588t-e8b1779cfefcea5d78c242bb8bc971e0624c0f00e04b9b752561cda31006b2503</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU1v1DAQhi0EosvCmRuyhOCAlNZ2HNvpAQlWUEAVIBW4GtuZ7GZJ4sV2Kvbf41VWLXDhZI3nmY93XoQeU3JKaSnO7NafMkJkjipeijtoQblQBSOyvosWJGcKSgU9QQ9i3OaQCSrvoxMqS1VLXi7Q988QWh8GMzrAvsVpA5jxghUVbgP8nGB0e9z4yfbduMYJ3Gb0vV_vcXQBYJw_YzrHBu-CjztwqbsG7EwEHNPU7B-ie63pIzw6vkv09e2bL6t3xeWni_erV5eFrZRKBShLpaxdC60DUzVSOcaZtcq6WlIggnFHWkKAcFtbWbFKUNeYkhIiLKtIuUQv5767yQ7QOBhTML3ehW4wYa-96fTfmbHb6LW_1vl8lNAyN3h-bBB81h2THrrooO_NCH6KWqiSCqYOk57-A279FMYsTmcJqmacZ2-W6GymXD5LDNDerEKJPnins3eH4VLP3uWKJ38quOWPZmXg2REw0Zm-Ddm0Lt5yNRG0rmTmipnrYoJfN3kTfmghS1npj99WmvEP5OqKv9YXmX8x83bY_nfL3yXLvmE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1778924411</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Performance of the 24-2-5 frequency doubling technology screening test: a prospective case study</title><source>Open Access: PubMed Central</source><creator>Spry, P G D ; Hussin, H M ; Sparrow, J M</creator><creatorcontrib>Spry, P G D ; Hussin, H M ; Sparrow, J M</creatorcontrib><description>Aim:To evaluate the performance of the frequency doubling technology (FDT) 24-2-5 screening test by comparison with the established N-30-5 FDT screening test for detection of glaucoma.Method:A prospective random sample of individuals referred for possible glaucoma were tested with FDT screening tests 24-2-5 and N-30-5 using the Humphrey Matrix perimeter in addition to standard clinical examination relevant to glaucoma detection. Discriminatory power, reliability and test time of these tests were assessed and compared. The case definition for glaucoma was made by patient according to the established clinical diagnosis.Results:Of 63 referred eligible individuals, 53 (84%) were recruited. Sensitivity and specificity for the N-30-5 screening test was 78 and 85% respectively, compared with 83% and 75% for the 24-2-5 with areas under a receiver operator characteristic curve being 0.87 and 0.92. Differences between these indices were not statistically significant. For a specificity of 95%, sensitivity values were 76% and 56% for the 24-2-5 and N-30-5 respectively. Mean (standard deviation) test duration for the FDT 24-2-5 and N-30-5 screening tests were 111 (13) and 39 (10) seconds respectively (p<0.001). A total of 19 subjects (36%) produced unreliable test results in one or both eyes when tested with the 24-2-5 screening test compared with 5 subjects (9%) with the N-30-5 (p<0.0005).Conclusion:Minimal discriminatory power differences existed between the two screening tests evaluated, with both screening tests exhibiting high discriminatory power for detection of individuals with glaucoma. More individuals produced unreliable results on the 24-2-5 screening, which also took longer to perform.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0007-1161</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-2079</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2007.115436</identifier><identifier>PMID: 17389743</identifier><identifier>CODEN: BJOPAL</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Extended Report ; Female ; Glaucoma - diagnosis ; Humans ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Miscellaneous ; Ophthalmology ; Prospective Studies ; Reproducibility of Results ; ROC Curve ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Sensory Thresholds ; Time Factors ; Vision Tests - methods ; Visual Field Tests - methods ; Visual Fields</subject><ispartof>British journal of ophthalmology, 2007-10, Vol.91 (10), p.1345-1349</ispartof><rights>2007 BMJ Publishing Group</rights><rights>2007 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright: 2007 2007 BMJ Publishing Group</rights><rights>Copyright © 2007 BMJ Publishing Group</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b588t-e8b1779cfefcea5d78c242bb8bc971e0624c0f00e04b9b752561cda31006b2503</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2001013/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2001013/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=19061957$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17389743$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Spry, P G D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hussin, H M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sparrow, J M</creatorcontrib><title>Performance of the 24-2-5 frequency doubling technology screening test: a prospective case study</title><title>British journal of ophthalmology</title><addtitle>Br J Ophthalmol</addtitle><description>Aim:To evaluate the performance of the frequency doubling technology (FDT) 24-2-5 screening test by comparison with the established N-30-5 FDT screening test for detection of glaucoma.Method:A prospective random sample of individuals referred for possible glaucoma were tested with FDT screening tests 24-2-5 and N-30-5 using the Humphrey Matrix perimeter in addition to standard clinical examination relevant to glaucoma detection. Discriminatory power, reliability and test time of these tests were assessed and compared. The case definition for glaucoma was made by patient according to the established clinical diagnosis.Results:Of 63 referred eligible individuals, 53 (84%) were recruited. Sensitivity and specificity for the N-30-5 screening test was 78 and 85% respectively, compared with 83% and 75% for the 24-2-5 with areas under a receiver operator characteristic curve being 0.87 and 0.92. Differences between these indices were not statistically significant. For a specificity of 95%, sensitivity values were 76% and 56% for the 24-2-5 and N-30-5 respectively. Mean (standard deviation) test duration for the FDT 24-2-5 and N-30-5 screening tests were 111 (13) and 39 (10) seconds respectively (p<0.001). A total of 19 subjects (36%) produced unreliable test results in one or both eyes when tested with the 24-2-5 screening test compared with 5 subjects (9%) with the N-30-5 (p<0.0005).Conclusion:Minimal discriminatory power differences existed between the two screening tests evaluated, with both screening tests exhibiting high discriminatory power for detection of individuals with glaucoma. More individuals produced unreliable results on the 24-2-5 screening, which also took longer to perform.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Extended Report</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Glaucoma - diagnosis</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Miscellaneous</subject><subject>Ophthalmology</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>ROC Curve</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Sensory Thresholds</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>Vision Tests - methods</subject><subject>Visual Field Tests - methods</subject><subject>Visual Fields</subject><issn>0007-1161</issn><issn>1468-2079</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkU1v1DAQhi0EosvCmRuyhOCAlNZ2HNvpAQlWUEAVIBW4GtuZ7GZJ4sV2Kvbf41VWLXDhZI3nmY93XoQeU3JKaSnO7NafMkJkjipeijtoQblQBSOyvosWJGcKSgU9QQ9i3OaQCSrvoxMqS1VLXi7Q988QWh8GMzrAvsVpA5jxghUVbgP8nGB0e9z4yfbduMYJ3Gb0vV_vcXQBYJw_YzrHBu-CjztwqbsG7EwEHNPU7B-ie63pIzw6vkv09e2bL6t3xeWni_erV5eFrZRKBShLpaxdC60DUzVSOcaZtcq6WlIggnFHWkKAcFtbWbFKUNeYkhIiLKtIuUQv5767yQ7QOBhTML3ehW4wYa-96fTfmbHb6LW_1vl8lNAyN3h-bBB81h2THrrooO_NCH6KWqiSCqYOk57-A279FMYsTmcJqmacZ2-W6GymXD5LDNDerEKJPnins3eH4VLP3uWKJ38quOWPZmXg2REw0Zm-Ddm0Lt5yNRG0rmTmipnrYoJfN3kTfmghS1npj99WmvEP5OqKv9YXmX8x83bY_nfL3yXLvmE</recordid><startdate>20071001</startdate><enddate>20071001</enddate><creator>Spry, P G D</creator><creator>Hussin, H M</creator><creator>Sparrow, J M</creator><general>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</general><general>BMJ</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><general>BMJ Group</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20071001</creationdate><title>Performance of the 24-2-5 frequency doubling technology screening test: a prospective case study</title><author>Spry, P G D ; Hussin, H M ; Sparrow, J M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b588t-e8b1779cfefcea5d78c242bb8bc971e0624c0f00e04b9b752561cda31006b2503</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Extended Report</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Glaucoma - diagnosis</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Miscellaneous</topic><topic>Ophthalmology</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>ROC Curve</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Sensory Thresholds</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>Vision Tests - methods</topic><topic>Visual Field Tests - methods</topic><topic>Visual Fields</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Spry, P G D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hussin, H M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sparrow, J M</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>British journal of ophthalmology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Spry, P G D</au><au>Hussin, H M</au><au>Sparrow, J M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Performance of the 24-2-5 frequency doubling technology screening test: a prospective case study</atitle><jtitle>British journal of ophthalmology</jtitle><addtitle>Br J Ophthalmol</addtitle><date>2007-10-01</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>91</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>1345</spage><epage>1349</epage><pages>1345-1349</pages><issn>0007-1161</issn><eissn>1468-2079</eissn><coden>BJOPAL</coden><abstract>Aim:To evaluate the performance of the frequency doubling technology (FDT) 24-2-5 screening test by comparison with the established N-30-5 FDT screening test for detection of glaucoma.Method:A prospective random sample of individuals referred for possible glaucoma were tested with FDT screening tests 24-2-5 and N-30-5 using the Humphrey Matrix perimeter in addition to standard clinical examination relevant to glaucoma detection. Discriminatory power, reliability and test time of these tests were assessed and compared. The case definition for glaucoma was made by patient according to the established clinical diagnosis.Results:Of 63 referred eligible individuals, 53 (84%) were recruited. Sensitivity and specificity for the N-30-5 screening test was 78 and 85% respectively, compared with 83% and 75% for the 24-2-5 with areas under a receiver operator characteristic curve being 0.87 and 0.92. Differences between these indices were not statistically significant. For a specificity of 95%, sensitivity values were 76% and 56% for the 24-2-5 and N-30-5 respectively. Mean (standard deviation) test duration for the FDT 24-2-5 and N-30-5 screening tests were 111 (13) and 39 (10) seconds respectively (p<0.001). A total of 19 subjects (36%) produced unreliable test results in one or both eyes when tested with the 24-2-5 screening test compared with 5 subjects (9%) with the N-30-5 (p<0.0005).Conclusion:Minimal discriminatory power differences existed between the two screening tests evaluated, with both screening tests exhibiting high discriminatory power for detection of individuals with glaucoma. More individuals produced unreliable results on the 24-2-5 screening, which also took longer to perform.</abstract><cop>BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR</cop><pub>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</pub><pmid>17389743</pmid><doi>10.1136/bjo.2007.115436</doi><tpages>5</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0007-1161 |
ispartof | British journal of ophthalmology, 2007-10, Vol.91 (10), p.1345-1349 |
issn | 0007-1161 1468-2079 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2001013 |
source | Open Access: PubMed Central |
subjects | Biological and medical sciences Extended Report Female Glaucoma - diagnosis Humans Male Medical sciences Middle Aged Miscellaneous Ophthalmology Prospective Studies Reproducibility of Results ROC Curve Sensitivity and Specificity Sensory Thresholds Time Factors Vision Tests - methods Visual Field Tests - methods Visual Fields |
title | Performance of the 24-2-5 frequency doubling technology screening test: a prospective case study |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T23%3A09%3A51IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Performance%20of%20the%2024-2-5%20frequency%20doubling%20technology%20screening%20test:%20a%20prospective%20case%20study&rft.jtitle=British%20journal%20of%20ophthalmology&rft.au=Spry,%20P%20G%20D&rft.date=2007-10-01&rft.volume=91&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=1345&rft.epage=1349&rft.pages=1345-1349&rft.issn=0007-1161&rft.eissn=1468-2079&rft.coden=BJOPAL&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/bjo.2007.115436&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E68316280%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b588t-e8b1779cfefcea5d78c242bb8bc971e0624c0f00e04b9b752561cda31006b2503%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1778924411&rft_id=info:pmid/17389743&rfr_iscdi=true |