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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:British journal of ophthalmology 2007-10, Vol.91 (10), p.1345-1349
Main Authors: Spry, P G D, Hussin, H M, Sparrow, J M
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&lt;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&lt;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&amp;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&lt;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&lt;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 &amp; 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 &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; 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&lt;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&lt;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