Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: Surv Ophthalmol. 2020 Aug 29;66(2):213–230. doi: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2020.08.003

Table 7 —

Frequency doubling perimetry and visual field deficit

Author(s) (year) No. of eyes (# subjects) Device Impaired visual field parameters (compared to the control group)
No DR NPDR PDR
Joltikov et al (2017)81 CN = 18 (n = 18)
No DR = 23 (n = 23)
Mild NPDR = 19 (n = 19)
Moderate NPDR = 15 (n = 15)		 FDP 24–2 and 10–2 strategy None FDP 24–2: ↑ PSD ↓ MD FDP 10–2: ↓ MD
Stem et al (2016)137 CN = 23 (n = 23)
No DR = 16 (n = 16)
NPDR = 14 (n = 14): 11 Mild and 3 Moderate NPDR.		 FDP 24–2 strategy None ↓ MD
Boynton et al (2015)27 CN = 15 (n = 15)
No PRP = 15 (n = 15)
PRP = 30 (n = 30)		 FDP 24–2 strategy ↑ PSD ↓ MD ↓ Foveal Sensitivity
Pinilla et al (2013)112 CN = 30 (n = 30)
No DR = 55 (n = 55)
Mild NPDR = 18 (n = 18)		 FDT C-20 strategy ↑ PSD
Jackson et al (2012)77 CN = 18 (n = 18)
No DR = 23 (n = 23)
NPDR = 35 (n = 35)		 FDP 24–2 strategy ↓ Mean Foveal Sensitivity ↓ Mean Foveal Sensitivity
Parravano et al (2008)110 CN = 30 (n = 30)
No DR = 30 (n = 30)		 FDT 30–2 strategy ↓ MD

CN, control; DR, diabetic retinopathy; NPDR, nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy; PDR, proliferative diabetic retinopathy; PRP, pan-retinal photocoagulation.