PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the diagnostic ability of frequency doubling technology perimetry (FDT) with standard automated perimetry (SAP) using Humphrey Field Analyser for the detection of @entity227 produced by chiasmal lesions. METHODS: Fifteen @entity1 with documented chiasmal disease and previously diagnosed of @entity1805 with Humphrey perimetry were prospectively evaluated. All of them underwent a new SAP (SITA 24-2) followed by FDT tests (C-20 threshold). Diagnostic criteria for @entity1805 were established according to the total deviation plot and the threshold values of FDT. A @entity1 was diagnosed with @entity1805 if one or both criteria were met. Based on these criteria, FDT sensitivity was calculated. Testing time and global indexes for both perimetric strategies were compared. RESULTS: The sensitivity of FDT was 75.0% (18 out of 24 eyes); the criterion based on threshold values was met more often (70.83%) than the criterion based on the total deviation plot (50.0%). Linear correlation was better for the external column than for the internal column of the visual field. Testing time with FDT was 122.16 seconds shorter than with SAP (p<0.001). The mean value for @entity5494 ( @entity5494 ) was -13.62 dB (SD 6.88) for SAP and -8.83 dB (SD 5.94) for FDT (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with standard automatic perimetry, FDT has a low sensitivity for detecting @entity1805 and also has more difficulty in defining the vertical limits of the defects. Therefore, it does not appear to be an adequate method for the detection of chiasmal @entity227 .

A comparison between Humphrey and frequency doubling perimetry for chiasmal XXXX .

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['patients', 'patient'] @entity227 :: ('MESH:D014786', 'Disease') :: ['visual field defects'] @entity1805 :: ('MESH:D006423', 'Disease') :: ['hemianopia', 'bitemporal hemianopia', 'temporal hemianopias'] @entity5494 :: ('MESH:D010262', 'Disease') :: ['MD', 'mean deviation']
@entity227 :: (MESH:D014786,Disease) :: ['visual field defects']
