The Effect of Testing Reliability on Visual Field Sensitivity in Normal Eyes: The Singapore Chinese Eye Study.
Tan Nicholas Y Q, Tham Yih-Chung, Koh Victor, Nguyen Duc Quang, Cheung Carol Y, Aung Tin, Wong Tien Yin, Cheng Ching-Yu
AI Summary
This study quantified how visual field test reliability (false answers) impacts sensitivity in normal eyes. Key finding: False negatives worsen mean deviation and pattern standard deviation, while false positives improve mean deviation, helping clinicians interpret unreliable results.
Abstract
Purpose
To quantitatively determine how the reliability indices in standard automated perimetry (SAP) affect the global indices of visual field (VF) results in nonglaucomatous eyes.
Design
Observational, cross-sectional study.
Participants
A total of 830 adults aged 40 to 80 years, without visual impairment, glaucoma, significant cataract, and major eye diseases, were selected from the population-based Singapore Chinese Eye Study (SCES).
Methods
Study participants underwent a comprehensive and standardized ocular examination and VF assessment using a Humphrey Field Analyzer II (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, CA). The effects of the test reliability, as indicated by the false-negative (FN), false-positive (FP), and fixation loss (FL) rates, on global indices, as indicated by the mean deviation (MD) and pattern standard deviation (PSD), were analyzed with multivariable regression models.
Main outcome measures
The MD and PSD.
Results
A total of 1828 VF results from 1235 normal eyes of 830 study subjects were included in the analyses. The multivariable regression analyses adjusted for age, gender, best-corrected visual acuity, and test duration showed that at lower frequencies of false answers (<15%), FNs decreased the MD (β [change in decibels {dB} per 5% increment in false answers] = -0.71 dB; P < 0.001), whereas FPs increased the MD (β = 0.65 dB; P < 0.001). At higher frequencies (≥15%), the false answers influenced the MD to a greater extent, where the β for the associations with FN and FP rates was -1.15 and 1.26 dB, respectively (both P < 0.001). We also found that when FN rate was <15%, higher FN rate increased the PSD (β = 0.51 dB; P < 0.001), and the effect was slightly larger when FN rate was ≥15% (β = 0.71 dB; P < 0.001). The effect of FPs on PSD was observed only when FP rate was <15% (β = -0.22 dB; P < 0.001). The FL had no associations with the MD, and had minimal effects on the PSD.
Conclusions
We quantified the effect of unreliable responses on the MD and PSD in SAP. Our study may allow clinicians to estimate how VF results are affected by varying degrees of unreliability, instead of relying on cutoff values for reliability indices.
MeSH Terms
Shields Classification
Key Concepts4
In nonglaucomatous eyes, false-negative (FN) rates below 15% decreased the mean deviation (MD) by -0.71 dB (P < 0.001) per 5% increment in false answers, while false-positive (FP) rates below 15% increased the MD by 0.65 dB (P < 0.001) per 5% increment.
In nonglaucomatous eyes, false-negative (FN) rates of 15% or higher decreased the mean deviation (MD) by -1.15 dB (P < 0.001) per 5% increment in false answers, and false-positive (FP) rates of 15% or higher increased the MD by 1.26 dB (P < 0.001) per 5% increment.
In nonglaucomatous eyes, false-negative (FN) rates below 15% increased the pattern standard deviation (PSD) by 0.51 dB (P < 0.001) per 5% increment in false answers, and FN rates of 15% or higher increased the PSD by 0.71 dB (P < 0.001) per 5% increment.
In nonglaucomatous eyes, false-positive (FP) rates below 15% affected the pattern standard deviation (PSD) by -0.22 dB (P < 0.001) per 5% increment in false answers, while fixation loss (FL) had no associations with mean deviation (MD) and minimal effects on PSD.
Related Articles5
A Child-Friendly Wearable Device for Quantifying Environmental Risk Factors for Myopia.
Observational StudyOptic neuropathy in high myopia: Glaucoma or high myopia or both?
ReviewEpidemiology of Field of Vision Disorders (eFOVID) study, Western Australia, 1988-2022. Report 1: Data collection and aggregation protocol.
Observational StudyScreening for Glaucoma in Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.
Systematic ReviewCombined structure-function analysis in glaucoma screening.
Cohort StudyIs this article assigned to the wrong chapter(s)? Let us know.