眼孔与维视周长测量青光眼视野的比较。

IF 1.2 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY Journal of Current Ophthalmology Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.4103/joco.joco_197_22
Ramin Daneshvar, Asieh Ehsaei, Nasrin Moghadas Sharif, Zahra Pato
{"title":"眼孔与维视周长测量青光眼视野的比较。","authors":"Ramin Daneshvar,&nbsp;Asieh Ehsaei,&nbsp;Nasrin Moghadas Sharif,&nbsp;Zahra Pato","doi":"10.4103/joco.joco_197_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To investigate the agreement between the Oculus and Metrovision perimeters in the visual field evaluation of glaucoma patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this cross-sectional study, 41 consecutive glaucoma patients were enrolled. After detailed clinical examinations, visual field testing was performed for all patients using the Oculus and Metrovision perimeters. The interval time between the two visual field examinations was 30 min.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 22 participants were male (53.7%) and the mean ± standard deviation (SD) age was 58.6 ± 9.1 years. The absolute average of the mean deviation (MD) in the oculus perimeter (8.24 ± 4.92 dB) was higher compared to the Metrovision perimeter (4.02 ± 4.62; <i>P</i> < 0.001). This difference was also evident in the Bland-Altman graph. The loss variance (pattern SD) values of Oculus perimeter (28.58 ± 16.40) and Metrovision perimeter (28.10 ± 28.45) were not significantly different; although based on the Bland-Altman plots in the lower MDs, the agreement is better and the data dispersion is lower, and in the higher MDs, the agreement is lower. The parameters of four visual field quadrants were also compared and showed poor correlations (<i>P</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Oculus and Metrovision perimeter devices have good agreement in lower MDs; however, they cannot be used interchangeably.</p>","PeriodicalId":15423,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Current Ophthalmology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/50/cb/JCO-35-17.PMC10481978.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Visual Field Measurements in Glaucomatous Eyes using Oculus and Metrovision Perimeters.\",\"authors\":\"Ramin Daneshvar,&nbsp;Asieh Ehsaei,&nbsp;Nasrin Moghadas Sharif,&nbsp;Zahra Pato\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/joco.joco_197_22\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To investigate the agreement between the Oculus and Metrovision perimeters in the visual field evaluation of glaucoma patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this cross-sectional study, 41 consecutive glaucoma patients were enrolled. After detailed clinical examinations, visual field testing was performed for all patients using the Oculus and Metrovision perimeters. The interval time between the two visual field examinations was 30 min.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 22 participants were male (53.7%) and the mean ± standard deviation (SD) age was 58.6 ± 9.1 years. The absolute average of the mean deviation (MD) in the oculus perimeter (8.24 ± 4.92 dB) was higher compared to the Metrovision perimeter (4.02 ± 4.62; <i>P</i> < 0.001). This difference was also evident in the Bland-Altman graph. The loss variance (pattern SD) values of Oculus perimeter (28.58 ± 16.40) and Metrovision perimeter (28.10 ± 28.45) were not significantly different; although based on the Bland-Altman plots in the lower MDs, the agreement is better and the data dispersion is lower, and in the higher MDs, the agreement is lower. The parameters of four visual field quadrants were also compared and showed poor correlations (<i>P</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Oculus and Metrovision perimeter devices have good agreement in lower MDs; however, they cannot be used interchangeably.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15423,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Current Ophthalmology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/50/cb/JCO-35-17.PMC10481978.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Current Ophthalmology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/joco.joco_197_22\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Current Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/joco.joco_197_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:探讨眼周与维视周在青光眼患者视野评估中的一致性。方法:在横断面研究中,41例连续青光眼患者入组。在详细的临床检查后,使用Oculus和Metrovision perimeter对所有患者进行视野测试。结果:男性22例(53.7%),平均±标准差(SD)年龄为58.6±9.1岁。眼周平均偏差(MD)的绝对平均值(8.24±4.92 dB)高于Metrovision周长(4.02±4.62);P < 0.001)。这种差异在Bland-Altman图中也很明显。Oculus周长(28.58±16.40)与Metrovision周长(28.10±28.45)的损失方差(pattern SD)值差异无统计学意义;虽然基于Bland-Altman图在较低的MDs中,一致性较好,数据离散度较低,而在较高的MDs中,一致性较低。四个视野象限的参数也进行了比较,显示出较差的相关性(P < 0.001)。结论:Oculus和Metrovision周边设备对下MDs具有良好的一致性;然而,它们不能互换使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of Visual Field Measurements in Glaucomatous Eyes using Oculus and Metrovision Perimeters.

Purpose: To investigate the agreement between the Oculus and Metrovision perimeters in the visual field evaluation of glaucoma patients.

Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 41 consecutive glaucoma patients were enrolled. After detailed clinical examinations, visual field testing was performed for all patients using the Oculus and Metrovision perimeters. The interval time between the two visual field examinations was 30 min.

Results: A total of 22 participants were male (53.7%) and the mean ± standard deviation (SD) age was 58.6 ± 9.1 years. The absolute average of the mean deviation (MD) in the oculus perimeter (8.24 ± 4.92 dB) was higher compared to the Metrovision perimeter (4.02 ± 4.62; P < 0.001). This difference was also evident in the Bland-Altman graph. The loss variance (pattern SD) values of Oculus perimeter (28.58 ± 16.40) and Metrovision perimeter (28.10 ± 28.45) were not significantly different; although based on the Bland-Altman plots in the lower MDs, the agreement is better and the data dispersion is lower, and in the higher MDs, the agreement is lower. The parameters of four visual field quadrants were also compared and showed poor correlations (P < 0.001).

Conclusion: The Oculus and Metrovision perimeter devices have good agreement in lower MDs; however, they cannot be used interchangeably.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
6.70%
发文量
45
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Peer Review under the responsibility of Iranian Society of Ophthalmology Journal of Current Ophthalmology, the official publication of the Iranian Society of Ophthalmology, is a peer-reviewed, open-access, scientific journal that welcomes high quality original articles related to vision science and all fields of ophthalmology. Journal of Current Ophthalmology is the continuum of Iranian Journal of Ophthalmology published since 1969.
期刊最新文献
Erratum: Intracameral Injection of Methotrexate for Treatment of Epithelial Ingrowth. Hereditary Multiple Exostoses with Rare Ocular Finding: A Case Report. Iris-Claw Anterior Chamber Phakic Intraocular Lens Explantation: A Case Series. Long-Term Surgical Outcomes of Bilateral Symmetrical Superior Oblique Nasal Tenotomy in Patients of Large A-Pattern Exotropia. Low Ocular Perfusion Pressure Values at Rest and during Resistance Exercise in Offspring of Glaucoma Patients.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1