Clinical comparison of frequency doubling technology perimetry and Humphrey perimetry.

AIM To determine the number of missed points on frequency doubling technology (FDT) perimetry that optimise the sensitivity and specificity of the test and to determine the topographical accuracy of the test in a clinical setting. METHODS In a prospective study, the perimetric data from 99 patients who underwent both FDT perimetry in the screening mode and Humphrey 24-2 (H24-2) were used to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the FDT perimetry compared with the full threshold H24-2 as the gold standard. RESULTS Missed points on the FDT perimetry correlated with both the mean deviation and the corrected pattern standard deviation on the Humphrey perimetry. A score assigned to abnormal points on the FDT perimetry and the Humphrey total deviation plot showed a significant correlation for both the location and the depth of the defect. In comparing the Humphrey hemifield test with the FDT perimetry results, if at least one missed point on the frequency doubling test was considered as abnormal then the overall sensitivity of the test was 78.1% and the specificity was 89.1%. CONCLUSION FDT perimetry in the screening mode performed in a clinical setting was highly specific, exhibited reasonable sensitivity, and accurately determined the location and depth of scotomas when compared with the full threshold Humphrey 24-2.