![]() ROC analysis shows Optopol yields higher discriminability than Zeiss for MD/PSD indices. Optopol was 92% sensitive in capturing early glaucomatous defects with MD <−2 when compared to Zeiss ( ). PSD values were higher and VFI values were lower from Optopol in glaucomatous subjects ( and ). ![]() The Optopol strategy took longer than the Zeiss strategy in both controls (difference = 23 seconds, ) and glaucomatous subjects (difference = 49 seconds, ). The difference in MD values (Optopol-Zeiss) was within the margin for controls (difference = 0.36, ), but not for glaucomatous subjects (difference = 2.16, ). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to assess MD and PSD’s discriminability. Confusion matrices were constructed to assess Optopol’s detection as a proxy for Zeiss’s detection of early glaucomatous defects. Quantitative comparisons of mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), visual field index (VFI), and test duration were made using two one-sided t-tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. ![]() A prospective case-control study was carried out in which the clinical practice study included 26 controls and 26 glaucoma subjects. To compare two threshold strategies for visual field assessment, ZETA Fast (Optopol Technology) and Humphrey SITA Fast (Carl Zeiss Meditec), in controls and subjects with glaucoma.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |