Confrontation visual field loss as a function of decibel sensitivity loss on automated static perimetry. Implications on the accuracy of confrontation visual field testing. 1995

S Shahinfar, and L N Johnson, and R W Madsen
Neuro-Ophthalmology Unit, Mason Institute of Ophthalmology, Columbia, Missouri, USA.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the accuracy of confrontation visual field testing with regard to the density of the visual field defect and its location in the peripheral visual field. METHODS A prospective comparison of confrontation visual field testing with full-threshold Humphrey automated static perimetry C24-2 or C30-2 was conducted at a university eye center over a 3-month period. Seventy-two patients with a variety of neurologic and ophthalmologic conditions underwent confrontation visual field testing and automated perimetry as a part of their evaluation. One visual field from each patient was analyzed for this study. RESULTS Confrontation visual field testing yielded an overall sensitivity for detecting an abnormal visual field (full-field analysis) of 63%, when sensitivity of confrontation testing rested on the detection of just one abnormal quadrant. The sensitivity of confrontation testing varied depending on the type of visual field loss present: 51% for arcuate scotomas, 67% for visual field constriction, 78% for altitudinal scotomas, and 90% for hemianopias. The sensitivity of detecting abnormal visual field quadrants, rather than the full-field analysis, was, however, poor at 38%. The sensitivity of confrontation testing was lower for superior quadrant defects and higher for inferior quadrant defects. The estimated probability of detecting an abnormal visual field quadrant occurring at a -26-decibel sensitivity loss from age-matched healthy patients for superior quadrant defects and a -19-decibel sensitivity loss for inferior quadrant defects was 50%. The increased sensitivity noted for visual field defects and for inferior quadrant defects appears to be related, in part, to the density of the visual field loss present. CONCLUSIONS Confrontation visual field testing is relatively insensitive unless a moderate to dense defect is present, and as such is a poor screening test. However, when visual field defects are identified with confrontation visual field testing, the defects often are real as per the high specificity (97%) and high positive predictive value (96%).

UI MeSH Term Description Entries
D008297 Male Males
D008875 Middle Aged An adult aged 45 - 64 years. Middle Age
D011237 Predictive Value of Tests In screening and diagnostic tests, the probability that a person with a positive test is a true positive (i.e., has the disease), is referred to as the predictive value of a positive test; whereas, the predictive value of a negative test is the probability that the person with a negative test does not have the disease. Predictive value is related to the sensitivity and specificity of the test. Negative Predictive Value,Positive Predictive Value,Predictive Value Of Test,Predictive Values Of Tests,Negative Predictive Values,Positive Predictive Values,Predictive Value, Negative,Predictive Value, Positive
D011446 Prospective Studies Observation of a population for a sufficient number of persons over a sufficient number of years to generate incidence or mortality rates subsequent to the selection of the study group. Prospective Study,Studies, Prospective,Study, Prospective
D005260 Female Females
D006801 Humans Members of the species Homo sapiens. Homo sapiens,Man (Taxonomy),Human,Man, Modern,Modern Man
D000328 Adult A person having attained full growth or maturity. Adults are of 19 through 44 years of age. For a person between 19 and 24 years of age, YOUNG ADULT is available. Adults
D000368 Aged A person 65 years of age or older. For a person older than 79 years, AGED, 80 AND OVER is available. Elderly
D000369 Aged, 80 and over Persons 80 years of age and older. Oldest Old
D012680 Sensitivity and Specificity Binary classification measures to assess test results. Sensitivity or recall rate is the proportion of true positives. Specificity is the probability of correctly determining the absence of a condition. (From Last, Dictionary of Epidemiology, 2d ed) Specificity,Sensitivity,Specificity and Sensitivity

Related Publications

S Shahinfar, and L N Johnson, and R W Madsen
October 1991, Journal of the National Medical Association,
S Shahinfar, and L N Johnson, and R W Madsen
December 2014, Acta ophthalmologica,
S Shahinfar, and L N Johnson, and R W Madsen
August 2005, Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft,
S Shahinfar, and L N Johnson, and R W Madsen
January 1995, Ophthalmology,
S Shahinfar, and L N Johnson, and R W Madsen
May 1993, Ophthalmology,
S Shahinfar, and L N Johnson, and R W Madsen
April 2013, Collegium antropologicum,
S Shahinfar, and L N Johnson, and R W Madsen
January 2001, Journal of stroke and cerebrovascular diseases : the official journal of National Stroke Association,
S Shahinfar, and L N Johnson, and R W Madsen
January 1986, Journal of ophthalmic nursing & technology,
S Shahinfar, and L N Johnson, and R W Madsen
April 2001, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science,
S Shahinfar, and L N Johnson, and R W Madsen
December 1988, Ophthalmology,
Copied contents to your clipboard!