Comparison of imo and Humphrey field analyzer perimeters in glaucomatous eyes

AIM: To compare the imo perimeter, a new portable head-mounted perimeter unit that enables both eyes to be examined quickly and simultaneously, with the Humphrey field analyzer (HFA) perimeter to investigate correlations and their diagnostic ability in glaucomatous eyes. METHODS: The performance of...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Yoshinori Nakai, Kyoko Bessho, Yuko Shono, Kaori Taoka, Yoshihide Nakai
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Press of International Journal of Ophthalmology (IJO PRESS) 2021
Materias:	imo perimeter visual field diagnosis diagnostic validation Ophthalmology RE1-994
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/7a9ae2dfdc1b479ebdbfc168540b12fb
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:7a9ae2dfdc1b479ebdbfc168540b12fb
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:7a9ae2dfdc1b479ebdbfc168540b12fb2021-11-26T04:02:12ZComparison of imo and Humphrey field analyzer perimeters in glaucomatous eyes2222-39592227-489810.18240/ijo.2021.12.11https://doaj.org/article/7a9ae2dfdc1b479ebdbfc168540b12fb2021-12-01T00:00:00Zhttp://ies.ijo.cn/en_publish/2021/12/20211211.pdfhttps://doaj.org/toc/2222-3959https://doaj.org/toc/2227-4898AIM: To compare the imo perimeter, a new portable head-mounted perimeter unit that enables both eyes to be examined quickly and simultaneously, with the Humphrey field analyzer (HFA) perimeter to investigate correlations and their diagnostic ability in glaucomatous eyes. METHODS: The performance of the equipment in 128 glaucomatous eyes and 40 normal eyes were tested. We investigated the correlations of mean deviation, pattern standard deviation, visual field index, and the sensitivity. RESULTS: Measurements of mean deviation (r=0.886, P<0.001), pattern standard deviation (r=0.814, P<0.001), and visual field index (r=0.871, P<0.001) in both perimeters were strongly and positively correlated. The sensitivities in the imo perimeter were 80.5% for mean deviation, 81.2% for pattern standard deviation, and 80.5% in visual field index; those in the HFA were 63.3% for mean deviation, 74.5% for pattern standard deviation, and 80.5% for visual field index. Both perimeters demonstrated high diagnostic ability. CONCLUSION: The parameters by the imo and HFA in glaucomatous eyes show strong positive correlations with favorable sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic ability. However, the difference between imo and HFA results increases with the increase in visual field disturbance.Yoshinori NakaiKyoko BesshoYuko ShonoKaori TaokaYoshihide NakaiPress of International Journal of Ophthalmology (IJO PRESS)articleimo perimetervisual field diagnosisdiagnostic validationOphthalmologyRE1-994ENInternational Journal of Ophthalmology, Vol 14, Iss 12, Pp 1882-1887 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	imo perimeter visual field diagnosis diagnostic validation Ophthalmology RE1-994
spellingShingle	imo perimeter visual field diagnosis diagnostic validation Ophthalmology RE1-994 Yoshinori Nakai Kyoko Bessho Yuko Shono Kaori Taoka Yoshihide Nakai Comparison of imo and Humphrey field analyzer perimeters in glaucomatous eyes
description	AIM: To compare the imo perimeter, a new portable head-mounted perimeter unit that enables both eyes to be examined quickly and simultaneously, with the Humphrey field analyzer (HFA) perimeter to investigate correlations and their diagnostic ability in glaucomatous eyes. METHODS: The performance of the equipment in 128 glaucomatous eyes and 40 normal eyes were tested. We investigated the correlations of mean deviation, pattern standard deviation, visual field index, and the sensitivity. RESULTS: Measurements of mean deviation (r=0.886, P<0.001), pattern standard deviation (r=0.814, P<0.001), and visual field index (r=0.871, P<0.001) in both perimeters were strongly and positively correlated. The sensitivities in the imo perimeter were 80.5% for mean deviation, 81.2% for pattern standard deviation, and 80.5% in visual field index; those in the HFA were 63.3% for mean deviation, 74.5% for pattern standard deviation, and 80.5% for visual field index. Both perimeters demonstrated high diagnostic ability. CONCLUSION: The parameters by the imo and HFA in glaucomatous eyes show strong positive correlations with favorable sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic ability. However, the difference between imo and HFA results increases with the increase in visual field disturbance.
format	article
author	Yoshinori Nakai Kyoko Bessho Yuko Shono Kaori Taoka Yoshihide Nakai
author_facet	Yoshinori Nakai Kyoko Bessho Yuko Shono Kaori Taoka Yoshihide Nakai
author_sort	Yoshinori Nakai
title	Comparison of imo and Humphrey field analyzer perimeters in glaucomatous eyes
title_short	Comparison of imo and Humphrey field analyzer perimeters in glaucomatous eyes
title_full	Comparison of imo and Humphrey field analyzer perimeters in glaucomatous eyes
title_fullStr	Comparison of imo and Humphrey field analyzer perimeters in glaucomatous eyes
title_full_unstemmed	Comparison of imo and Humphrey field analyzer perimeters in glaucomatous eyes
title_sort	comparison of imo and humphrey field analyzer perimeters in glaucomatous eyes
publisher	Press of International Journal of Ophthalmology (IJO PRESS)
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/7a9ae2dfdc1b479ebdbfc168540b12fb
work_keys_str_mv	AT yoshinorinakai comparisonofimoandhumphreyfieldanalyzerperimetersinglaucomatouseyes AT kyokobessho comparisonofimoandhumphreyfieldanalyzerperimetersinglaucomatouseyes AT yukoshono comparisonofimoandhumphreyfieldanalyzerperimetersinglaucomatouseyes AT kaoritaoka comparisonofimoandhumphreyfieldanalyzerperimetersinglaucomatouseyes AT yoshihidenakai comparisonofimoandhumphreyfieldanalyzerperimetersinglaucomatouseyes
_version_	1718409909937111040

Comparison of imo and Humphrey field analyzer perimeters in glaucomatous eyes

Ejemplares similares