Comparison of reliability indices in conventional and high-pass resolution perimetry.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study is to compare reliability indices in conventional (Humphrey) and high-pass resolution (Ring) perimetry in healthy subjects followed prospectively at 6-month intervals.


METHODS
Of the 146 healthy subjects (mean age, 50.24 years; range, 30-84 years) enrolled in the study, 102 have been tested twice and 71 three times. The authors compared the reliability indices, fixation losses, false-positive rate, and false-negative rate between the two techniques, both cross-sectionally and serially.


RESULTS
Fixation losses were slightly higher with high-pass resolution perimetry, whereas false-positive errors were higher with conventional perimetry. False-negative errors were uncommon with either technique. Of 319 fields, 30 (9.4%) conventional and 39 (12.2%) high-pass resolution perimetry fields were unreliable using the current suggested reliability criteria. Nearly all unreliable fields were due to high fixation errors. Using alternative criteria derived from baseline 95th percentile values, unreliable fields were attributed more equally to all three reliability parameters. In subjects tested three times, the reliability indices remained constant.


CONCLUSIONS
The results of this study showed that healthy subjects have comparable reliability indices when tested with conventional and high-pass resolution perimetry.
Chauhan
B C
BC
Department of Ophthalmology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Mohandas
R N
RN
Whelan
J H
JH
McCormick
T A
TA
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D005189:False Positive Reactions; D005260:Female; D005403:Fixation, Ocular; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011601:Psychophysics; D012016:Reference Values; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D058609:Visual Field Tests / Q000379:methods*; D014794:Visual Fields