title: Comparison of visual field test results obtained through Humphrey matrix frequency doubling technology perimetry versus standard automated perimetry in healthy children.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The aim of this study was to compare the visual field test results in healthy children obtained via the Humphrey matrix 24-2 threshold program and standard automated perimetry (SAP) using the Swedish interactive threshold algorithm (SITA)-Standard 24-2 test.
  
  
  METHODS
  This prospective study included 55 healthy children without ocular or systemic disorders who underwent both SAP and frequency doubling technology (FDT) perimetry visual field testing. Visual field test reliability indices, test duration, global indices (mean deviation [MD], and pattern standard deviation [PSD]) were compared between the 2 tests using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and paired t-test. The performance of the Humphrey field analyzer (HFA) 24-2 SITA-standard and frequency-doubling technology Matrix 24-2 tests between genders were compared with Mann-Whitney U-test.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Fifty-five healthy children with a mean age of 12.2 ± 1.9 years (range from 8 years to 16 years) were included in this prospective study. The test durations of SAP and FDT were similar (5.2 ± 0.5 and 5.1 ± 0.2 min, respectively, P = 0.651). MD and the PSD values obtained via FDT Matrix were significantly higher than those obtained via SAP (P < 0.001), and fixation losses and false negative errors were significantly less with SAP (P < 0.05). A weak positive correlation between the two tests in terms of MD (r = 0.352, P = 0.008) and PSD (r = 0.329, P = 0.014) was observed.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Children were able to complete both the visual test algorithms successfully within 6 min. However, SAP testing appears to be associated with less depression of the visual field indices of healthy children. FDT Matrix and SAP should not be used interchangeably in the follow-up of children.
authors.affiliation: Department of Ophthalmology, Hacettepe University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
authors.forename: Sibel
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Kocabeyoglu
authors.forename: Salih
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Uzun
authors.forename: Mehmet Cem
authors.initials: MC
authors.lastname: Mocan
authors.forename: Banu
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Bozkurt
authors.forename: Murat
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Irkec
authors.forename: Mehmet
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Orhan
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000465:Algorithms; D002648:Child; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D009901:Optic Nerve Diseases / Q000175:diagnosis; D011446:Prospective Studies; D012016:Reference Values; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D058609:Visual Field Tests / Q000379:methods*; D014794:Visual Fields / Q000502:physiology*