Can DMCO Detect Visual Field Loss in Neurological Patients? A Secondary Validation Study.

Unrecognized visual field loss is caused by a range of blinding eye conditions as well as serious brain diseases. The commonest cause of asymptomatic visual field loss is glaucoma. No screening tools have been proven cost-effective. Damato Multifixation Campimetry Online (DMCO), an inexpensive online test, has been evaluated as a future cost-beneficial tool to detect glaucoma. To further validate DMCO, this study aimed to test DMCO in a preselected population with neurological visual field loss. METHODS: The study design was an evaluation of a diagnostic test. Patients were included if they had undergone surgery for epilepsy during 2011-2014, resulting in visual field loss. They were examined with DMCO and results were compared with those obtained with the Humphrey Field Analyzer (30:2 SITA-Fast). DMCO sensitivity and specificity were estimated with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 40 patients (25 female and 15 male) with a mean age of 39 years (range 17-60 years). The mean visual acuity was >1.0 and all eyes had an intraocular pressure <21 mm Hg. Sensitivity and specificity of DMCO compared to the reference standard were 72.7 and 96.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: DMCO detects moderate-to-severe homonymous quadrantanopia; it can be useful in settings where the current practice is confrontation visual field examination, and where standard conventional perimetry is not available.

Detection of visual field defects by opticians - with Damato Multifixation Campimetry Online.

PURPOSE: To study Damato Multifixation Campimetry Online (DMCO), an inexpensive online visual field test, used for screening at optician shops in Denmark. METHODS: This was an evaluation of a diagnostic test and customers were included if minimum 50 years old, with a visual acuity of minimum 0.5 and with less myopia than 6 D. Standard equipment was a computer, a wireless mouse and a computer monitor. We used the 'DMCO STANDARD 4,5' algorithm for screening. DMCO results were electronically transmitted to the authors. Customers with a positive DMCO test received an eye examination including the reference standard Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer 30-2 SITA Fast test. A subset of control participants with a negative DMCO test received the same examination in order to estimate the number of false and true negatives. DMCO specificity and sensitivity were estimated according to five reference standards with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: The population comprised 627 individuals, 381 women and 246 men, from 13 optician shops. Mean age was 62 years (SD 7.4). DMCO was positive in 32 individuals and 27 individuals were classified as 'true positives' with diagnoses such as glaucoma, cataract and neurological visual field defects. Of the 595 individuals with a negative DMCO test, 110 were examined and nine individuals were classified as 'false negatives' according to diagnoses. Depending on reference the specificity was 97-99% and sensitivity was 14-69%. CONCLUSION: Screening with DMCO demonstrated high specificity, whereas sensitivity was unsatisfactory. Future studies with enough power to estimate the true sensitivity is needed.

Visual field defects after temporal lobe resection for epilepsy.

PURPOSE: To determine visual field defects (VFDs) using methods of varying complexity and compare results with subjective symptoms in a population of newly operated temporal lobe epilepsy patients. METHODS: Forty patients were included in the study. Two patients failed to perform VFD testing. Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) perimetry was used as the gold standard test to detect VFDs. All patients performed a web-based visual field test called Damato Multifixation Campimetry Online (DMCO). A bedside confrontation visual field examination ad modum Donders was extracted from the medical records in 27/38 patients. All participants had a consultation by an ophthalmologist. A questionnaire described the subjective complaints. REULTS: A VFD in the upper quadrant was demonstrated with HFA in 29 (76%) of the 38 patients after surgery. In 27 patients tested ad modum Donders, the sensitivity of detecting a VFD was 13%. Eight patients (21%) had a severe VFD similar to a quadrant anopia, thus, questioning their permission to drive a car. In this group of patients, a VFD was demonstrated in one of five (sensitivity=20%) ad modum Donders and in seven of eight (sensitivity=88%) with DMCO. Subjective symptoms were only reported by 28% of the patients with a VFD and in two of eight (sensitivity=25%) with a severe VFD. Most patients (86%) considered VFD information mandatory. CONCLUSION: VFD continue to be a frequent adverse event after epilepsy surgery in the medial temporal lobe and may affect the permission to drive a car in at least one in five patients. Subjective symptoms and bedside visual field testing ad modum Donders are not sensitive to detect even a severe VFD. Newly developed web-based visual field test methods appear sensitive to detect a severe VFD but perimetry remains the golden standard for determining if visual standards for driving is fulfilled. Patients consider VFD information as mandatory.