The ocular testing completed for ADAGES and DIGS has been described elsewhere.[8 (link), 11 (link), 15 (link)] In brief, participants underwent a comprehensive ophthalmic examination, including annual review of medical history, best-corrected visual acuity, slit lamp biomicroscopy, intraocular pressure (IOP), dilated funduscopy examination, pachymetry, simultaneous stereoscopic optic disc photography, standard automated perimetry (SAP) with 24-2 Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, CA), and Heidelberg Retina Tomograph (HRTII; Heidelberg Engineering, Inc, Heidelberg, Germany). At each bi-annual follow-up visit, VF testing, IOP measurements and HRT imaging were completed.
24 2 swedish interactive threshold algorithm
Manufactured by Zeiss
Sourced in Ireland, United States
The 24-2 Swedish interactive threshold algorithm is a visual field testing tool developed by Zeiss. It is designed to assess and analyze the central 24-degree visual field of the eye. The algorithm employs a standardized, interactive testing procedure to determine the sensitivity thresholds of the tested visual field.
Automatically generated - may contain errors
6 protocols using 24 2 swedish interactive threshold algorithm
1
Comprehensive Ophthalmic Assessment Protocol
2
Longitudinal Ophthalmic Assessment Protocol
3
Glaucoma Diagnostic Criteria and Exclusions
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
The inclusion criteria for participants in this study included having an eye with the diagnosis of glaucoma with open angles on gonioscopy examination, a best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 6/12 or better, a spherical refractive error within ±5.00 diopter (D), and cylindrical refractive error within ±3.00 D. All participants were also required to have performed standard automated perimetry testing with a 24-2 Swedish interactive threshold algorithm (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, CA) in the study eye within 6 months from the time of the visit, with ≤33% fixation losses and false-negative errors and ≤15% false-positive errors. The exclusion criteria for study eyes included a history of intraocular surgery (except uncomplicated cataract or glaucoma surgery, unless this was performed within the past 3 months from the time of the visit) or glaucoma due to secondary causes (e.g., trauma). Participants with any systemic or ocular disease (e.g., diabetes, age-related macular degeneration) or condition that affected cognition (e.g., dementia, stroke) or who were taking any medication known to affect retinal function (e.g., hydroxychloroquine) were excluded from this study. Participants were also excluded if they had any physical or mental impairment preventing them from participating in this study and/or providing informed consent.
4
Retrospective Glaucoma Registry Analysis
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
This was a retrospective study that used cross-sectional data from the Duke Glaucoma Registry, a database of electronic medical and research records at the Vision, Imaging, and Performance Laboratory at Duke University. The Duke Health Institutional Review Board approved this study, and a waiver of informed consent was granted due to the retrospective nature of this work. All methods adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki for research involving human subjects and the study was conducted in accordance with regulations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
The visual field tests were performed using SAP with the 24-2 Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, CA) protocol. Unreliable tests with more than 33% fixation losses or 15% false-positive errors were excluded. RNFL thickness measurements were obtained from peripapillary circle scans, acquired using the Spectralis SDOCT (Heidelberg Engineering, GmbH, Dossenheim, Germany). According to manufacturer recommendations, tests with a quality score lower than 15 were excluded. The fundus photos present in the database were acquired from two different cameras: Nidek 3DX (Nidek, Japan) and Visupac (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, CA). The image was retained if the optic disc was entirely visible in the photo, and if no artifacts were present.
The visual field tests were performed using SAP with the 24-2 Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, CA) protocol. Unreliable tests with more than 33% fixation losses or 15% false-positive errors were excluded. RNFL thickness measurements were obtained from peripapillary circle scans, acquired using the Spectralis SDOCT (Heidelberg Engineering, GmbH, Dossenheim, Germany). According to manufacturer recommendations, tests with a quality score lower than 15 were excluded. The fundus photos present in the database were acquired from two different cameras: Nidek 3DX (Nidek, Japan) and Visupac (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, CA). The image was retained if the optic disc was entirely visible in the photo, and if no artifacts were present.
5
Comprehensive Glaucoma Evaluation Protocol
6
Glaucoma Diagnosis and Genetics Study
About PubCompare
Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.
We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.
However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.
Ready to get started?
Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required
Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!