Literature DB >> 1800764

The accuracy of confrontation visual field test in comparison with automated perimetry.

L N Johnson1, F G Baloh.   

Abstract

The accuracy of confrontation visual field testing was determined for 512 visual fields using automated static perimetry as the reference standard. The sensitivity of confrontation testing excluding patchy defects was 40% for detecting anterior visual field defects, 68.3% for posterior defects, and 50% for both anterior and posterior visual field defects combined. The sensitivity within each group varied depending on the type of visual field defect encountered. Confrontation testing had a high sensitivity (75% to 100%) for detecting altitudinal visual loss, central/centrocecal scotoma, and homonymous hemianopsia. Confrontation testing was fairly insensitive (20% to 50% sensitivity) for detecting arcuate scotoma and bitemporal hemianopsia. The specificity of confrontation testing was high at 93.4%. The high positive predictive value (72.6%) and negative predictive value (75.7%) would indicate that visual field defects identified during confrontation testing are often true visual field defects. However, the many limitations of confrontation testing should be remembered, particularly its low sensitivity for detecting visual field loss associated with parasellar tumors, glaucoma, and compressive optic neuropathies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1800764      PMCID: PMC2571584     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Med Assoc        ISSN: 0027-9684            Impact factor:   1.798


  8 in total

1.  Computerized perimetry in neuro-ophthalmology.

Authors:  J A McCrary; J Feigon
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  1979-07       Impact factor: 12.079

2.  Sight-saving month calls attention to eye care.

Authors:  M Springer
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1988-05

3.  Optimal rates of movement for kinetic perimetry.

Authors:  C A Johnson; J L Keltner
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1987-01

4.  A clinical comparison of visual field testing with a new automated perimeter, the Humphrey Field Analyzer, and the Goldmann perimeter.

Authors:  R W Beck; T J Bergstrom; P R Lichter
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  1985-01       Impact factor: 12.079

5.  Epidemiology of eye disease in the elderly.

Authors:  L Hyman
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 3.775

6.  Confrontation visual field techniques in the detection of anterior visual pathway lesions.

Authors:  J D Trobe; P C Acosta; J P Krischer; G L Trick
Journal:  Ann Neurol       Date:  1981-07       Impact factor: 10.422

7.  Ocular disease in Caribbean patients with serologic evidence of Lyme borreliosis.

Authors:  K E Winward; J L Smith
Journal:  J Clin Neuroophthalmol       Date:  1989-06

8.  Age-related changes of the normal visual field.

Authors:  G J Jaffe; J A Alvarado; R P Juster
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1986-07
  8 in total
  7 in total

Review 1.  Visual fields in neuro-ophthalmology.

Authors:  Sachin Kedar; Deepta Ghate; James J Corbett
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2011 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.848

2.  A case of comorbidities highlighting cerebral stroke, vision impairment, and dementia.

Authors:  Kimberly Hreha; Praveena Gupta; Timothy Reistetter
Journal:  SAGE Open Med Case Rep       Date:  2020-11-24

3.  Using natural viewing behavior to screen for and reconstruct visual field defects.

Authors:  Birte Gestefeld; Alessandro Grillini; Jan-Bernard C Marsman; Frans W Cornelissen
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2020-09-02       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  Sensitivity and Specificity of New Visual Field Screening Software for Diagnosing Hemianopia.

Authors:  Supharat Jariyakosol; Patcharaporn Jaru-Ampornpan; Anita Manassakorn; Rath Itthipanichpong; Parima Hirunwiwatkul; Visanee Tantisevi; Thanapong Somkijrungroj; Prin Rojanapongpun
Journal:  Eye Brain       Date:  2021-08-29

5.  Lateralized occipital degeneration in posterior cortical atrophy predicts visual field deficits.

Authors:  Rebecca S Millington; Merle James-Galton; Mari N Maia Da Silva; Gordon T Plant; Holly Bridge
Journal:  Neuroimage Clin       Date:  2017-01-17       Impact factor: 4.881

6.  Chiasmal herniation following treatment of pituitary macroadenoma.

Authors:  Marjolein Tabak; Iris C M Pelsma; Mark C Kruit; Wouter R van Furth; Nienke R Biermasz; Irene C Notting
Journal:  Pituitary       Date:  2020-10-15       Impact factor: 4.107

7.  What are Your Eyes Revealing? The Contemporary Bedside Neuro-Ophthalmological Examination.

Authors:  Pei Meng Ng; Jafri Malin Abdullah; Zamzuri Idris; Abdul Rahman Izaini Ghani; Sanihah Abdul Halim
Journal:  Malays J Med Sci       Date:  2021-10-26
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.