Glaucoma
Conditions
Keywords
automated perimetry, visual fields, reliability, vision tests/standards, randomized controlled trial, false positive reactions, false negative reactions, fixation, ocular, mean deviation, variability, program, software, glaucoma/diagnosis, visual field tests/methods, aged, humans, female, male, prospective studies, reproducibility of results
Brief summary
Unreliability and visual field variability is a known problem with automated perimetry in both developing and developed country settings. This study will look at the effects of a computer program that allows new patients to practice the visual field exam before taking the actual exam. Our hypothesis is that the intervention group will have less variability as measured by mean deviation between exams and greater reliability as measured by the standard unreliability indexes of false positive rate, false negative rate, and fixation losses.
Detailed description
3 study visits. Visit 1: Baseline visit for consent, getting baseline data and finally randomizing the patient. Those randomized to intervention get their first session of simulated visual field (2 per eye) on a regular computer for training purposes. Visit 2: 1 to 2 days after baseline. The intervention group gets 1 practice test per eye. Then both groups get a regular automated visual field Visit 3: 1 to 2 weeks after baseline. The intervention group gets 1 practice test per eye. Then both groups get a regular automated visual field. Study Ends, patient gets seen by the patient.
Interventions
OTHERPractice program
Each practice session (simulated visual field test on computer) takes 3-15 minutes
Sponsors
Oftalmologia Hospital Sotero del Rio
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
DIAGNOSTIC
Masking
TRIPLE (Caregiver, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* 18 years old or greater * Referred to the glaucoma clinic for examination due to suspected glaucoma or glaucoma diagnosis * No more than 1 automated visual field test within the last 4 years
Exclusion criteria
* patients who cannot remain seated for 10 minutes * patients with neck problems that prevent them from using the field analyzer properly
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| The absolute value of the difference in mean deviation of the first and second visual field exam | Visual field exams obtained 1 to 2 weeks apart |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Difference in the absolute number of altered points in the visual field with a total deviation below the 0.5 percentile | Visual field exams obtained 1 to 2 weeks apart |
| Difference in the percentage of false positives, false negatives, and fixation losses at the first and second exam between control and intervention group | Visual field exams obtained 1 to 2 weeks apart |
| Difference in the time required to complete the first and second exam | Visual field exams obtained 1 to 2 weeks apart |
| Difference in the proportion of unreliable visual fields at the first and second exam between control and intervention groups | Visual field exams obtained 1 to 2 weeks apart |
Countries
Chile
Contacts
Primary ContactJustin B Hellman, Bachelors
Backup ContactEugenio Maul, MD/MPH
Outcome results
None listed