The Methodology of Visual Field Testing with Frequency Doubling Technology in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2005–2006

REFERENCES

• Gardiner SK, Anderson DR, Fingeret M, McSoley JJ, Johnson C. Evaluation of decision rules for frequency-doubling technology screening tests. Optom Vis Sci. 2006;83:E432–439.
   Google Scholar
• Artes PH, Hutchison DM, Nicolela MT, LeBlanc RP, Chauhan BC. Threshold and variability properties of matrix frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46(7):2451–2457.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cioffi GA, Mansberger S, Spry PGD, Johnson CA, Van Buskirk EM. Frequency doubling perimetry and the detection of eye disease in the community. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2000;98:199–202.
   Google Scholar
• Quigley HA, Sanchez RM, Dunkelburger GR, Henaut NL, Baginski TA. Chronic glaucoma selectively damages large optic nerve fibers. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1987;28:913–918.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humphrey® matrix visual field instrument user’s guide, Dublin, CA: Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Spry PGD, Johnson CA, Anderson AJ, Gunvant P, Fingeret M, Keltner JL, et al. The Humphrey Matrix primer: Preliminary edition. Dublin, CA: Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson AJ, Johnson CA, Fingeret M, Keltner JL, Spry PGD, Wall M, et al. Characteristics of the normative database for the Humphrey Matrix perimeter. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:1540–1548.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong S, Chung W, Hong YJ, Seong GJ. Discriminating ability of Humphrey matrix perimetry in early glaucoma patients. Ophthalmologica. 2007;221:195–199.
   Google Scholar
• Iwasaki A, Sugita M, for the Glaucoma Screening Project (GSP) Study Group. Performance of glaucoma mass screening with only a visual field test using frequency-doubling technology perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;134:529–537.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson AJ, Johnson CA. Frequency doubling technology perimetry. Ophthalmol Clin North Am. 2003;16:213–225.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mansberger SL, Johnson CA, Cioffi GA. The results of screening frequency doubling technology perimetry in different locations of the community. J Glaucoma. 2007;16:73–80.
   Google Scholar
• Spry PGD, Hussin HM, Sparrow JM. Performance of the 24-2-5 frequency doubling technology screening test: a prospective case study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2007;91:1345–1349.
   Google Scholar
• Nehmad L, Madonna RJ. Optomizing the use of frequency doubling technology perimetry in community vision screenings. Optom Vis Sci. 2008;85:559–565.
   Google Scholar
• Iwase A, Tomidokoro A, Araie M, Shirato S, Shimizu h, Kitazawa Y. Tajimi Study Group. Performance of frequency-doubling technology perimetry in a population-based prevalence survey of glaucoma: the Tajimi study. Ophthalmology. 2007;14:27–32.
   Google Scholar
• Wang YX, Xu L, Zhang RX, Jonas JB. Frequency-doubling threshold perimetry in predicting glaucoma in a population-based study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2007;125:1402–1406.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• National Center for Health Statistics. NHANES Analytic Guidelines June 2004 Version. September 2006. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhanes/nhanes2003–2004/analytical_guidelines.htm. Accessed 29 May 2009.
   Google Scholar
• National Center for Health Statistics. Ophthalmology Procedures Manual. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes_05_06/OP.pdf. Accessed 29 May 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Spry PG, Johnson CA, McKendrick AM, Turpin A. Variability components of standard automated perimetry and frequency-doubling technology perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42:1404–1410.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fogagnolo P, Mazzolani F, RossettiL Orzalesi, N. Detecting glaucoma with frequency-doubling technology perimetry: a comparison between N-30 and C-20 screening programs. J Glaucoma. 2005;14(6):485–491.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson CA, Cioffi GA, Van Buskirk EM. Evaluation of two screening tests for frequency doubling technology perimetry. In: Perimetry update 1998/1999. The Hague, The Netherlands: Kugler Publications, 1999:103–9.
   Google Scholar
• Wang Q, Klein BEK, Klein R, Moss SE. Refractive status in the Beaver Dam Eye Study. Inves Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1994;35:4344–4347.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramrattan RS, Wolfs RCW, Panda-Jonas S, Jonas JB, Bakker D, Pols HA, et al. Prevalence and causes of visual field loss in the elderly and associations with impairment in daily functioning. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001;119:1788–94.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Leske MC, Connell AM, Schachat AP, Hyman L. The Barbados Eye Study: prevalence of open angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1994;112:821–829.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varma R, Mohanty SA, Deneen J, Wu J, Azen SP, The LALES Group. Burden and predictors of undetected eye disease in Mexican-Americans. Medical Care. 2008;46:497–506.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chauhan BC, Johnson CA. Test-re-test variability of frequency-doubling perimetry and conventional perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal subjects. Inves Vis Sci. 1999;40:648–656.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel SC, Friedman DS, Varadkar P, Robin AL. Algorithm for interpreting the results of frequency doubling perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129:323–327.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doshi S, Harvey W. Investigative techniques and ocular examination. Elsevier Health Sciences, 2003.
   Google Scholar