This article is more than 5 years old. Information may no longer be current.
FDT perimetry combined with eye health testing can be reliable glaucoma screening strategy
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts
When used in conjunction with eye health screening, frequency doubling technology perimetry can be considered a reliable glaucoma screening strategy for identifying abnormalities in high-risk people, according to results from a community vision screening study.
"However, with the exception of the poor sensitivity shown [through frequency doubling technology perimetry without eye health testing], results from the simulated screening did not support the usefulness of one strategy over another," the study authors said.
To determine the best strategy for employing frequency doubling technology (FDT) perimetry in glaucoma screenings, Leon Nehmad, OD, MSW, FAAO, and Richard J. Madonna, OD, MA, FAAO, examined different approaches implemented in a two-part screening program that enrolled a total of 1,253 participants.
During the first part of the screening, all participants were tested for general eye health in a community screening. However, FDT testing was limited to only high-risk participants, defined as those aged older than 45 years who were either black or had a family history of glaucoma.
During the second part of the screening, the investigators examined four strategies for implementing FDT in a simulated screening: FDT limited to high-risk people who had passed eye health testing (strategy one); FDT performed on all people who had passed eye health testing (strategy two); FDT and eye health testing performed on all people (strategy three); and FDT performed on all people, regardless of eye health testing (strategy four).
Of 1,043 participants in the community screening who passed eye health testing, 159 (15.2%) were deemed high-risk and were subsequently tested with FDT; 19 of these tests (1.5%) were failures.
"There were few unreliable tests (5%)," the authors said.
For the simulated screening, specificity and sensitivity were 83.3% and 77.8% for strategy one; 80% and 88.9% for strategy two; 76.7% and 94.4% for strategy three; and 90% and 38.9% for strategy four, respectively, according to the study, published in the July issue of Optometry and Vision Science.