Literature DB >> 17585432

Current practice with standard automated perimetry.

C F Bosworth1, P A Sample, C A Johnson, R N Weinreb.   

Abstract

This article reviews standard visual field testing. The authors discuss the psychophysics involved in the design of the perimeter and the parameters used to test visual field sensitivity. The authors also explain normal and pathological sensitivity across the visual field, the patient and testing conditions that influence visual field results, and the interpretation of a single visual field, with an emphasis on detection of glaucomatous damage. The new thresholding program for visual fields, Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm, is explained. Finally, the authors give examples of factors that should be considered when setting criteria for abnormality and review how recent studies have used various criteria to identify abnormality.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 17585432     DOI: 10.3109/08820530009037869

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Semin Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0882-0538            Impact factor:   1.975


  11 in total

1.  Comparison of regression models for serial visual field analysis.

Authors:  Jun Mo Lee; Kouros Nouri-Mahdavi; Esteban Morales; Abdelmonem Afifi; Fei Yu; Joseph Caprioli
Journal:  Jpn J Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-08-28       Impact factor: 2.447

2.  Baseline visual field findings in the Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension Treatment Trial (IIHTT).

Authors:  John L Keltner; Chris A Johnson; Kimberly E Cello; Michael Wall
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2014-04-29       Impact factor: 4.799

3.  Monitoring Glaucomatous Functional Loss Using an Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Dashboard.

Authors:  Siamak Yousefi; Tobias Elze; Louis R Pasquale; Osamah Saeedi; Mengyu Wang; Lucy Q Shen; Sarah R Wellik; Carlos G De Moraes; Jonathan S Myers; Michael V Boland
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2020-03-10       Impact factor: 12.079

Review 4.  Spotlight on iPad Visual Field Tests Efficacy.

Authors:  Parul Ichhpujani; Hennaav Dhillon
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-07-05

5.  Relationship of change in central corneal thickness to visual field progression in eyes with glaucoma.

Authors:  Deepa Viswanathan; Ivan Goldberg; Stuart L Graham
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-03-14       Impact factor: 3.117

6.  Compass: clinical evaluation of a new instrument for the diagnosis of glaucoma.

Authors:  Luca Rossetti; Maurizio Digiuni; Alberto Rosso; Roberta Riva; Giuliano Barbaro; Michael K Smolek; Nicola Orzalesi; Stefano De Cilla'; Alessandro Autelitano; Paolo Fogagnolo
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-03-25       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Determining Spatial Summation and Its Effect on Contrast Sensitivity across the Central 20 Degrees of Visual Field.

Authors:  Agnes Yiu Jeung Choi; Lisa Nivison-Smith; Sieu K Khuu; Michael Kalloniatis
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-07-06       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  A Comparison of Perimetric Results from a Tablet Perimeter and Humphrey Field Analyzer in Glaucoma Patients.

Authors:  Yu Xiang George Kong; Mingguang He; Jonathan G Crowston; Algis J Vingrys
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2016-11-03       Impact factor: 3.283

Review 9.  Automated achromatic perimetry.

Authors:  Anand Aggarwal; Kanika Chhabra; Prempal Kaur; Karamjit Singh; Indu Khosa; Pulkit Bansal
Journal:  Oman J Ophthalmol       Date:  2018 Jan-Apr

Review 10.  Should clinical automated perimetry be considered for routine functional assessment of early/intermediate age-related macular degeneration (AMD)? A systematic review of current literature.

Authors:  Matt Trinh; Michael Kalloniatis; Lisa Nivison-Smith
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  2021-11-29       Impact factor: 3.992

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.