Literature DB >> 1869056

The effects of weighting the "mean defect" visual field index according to threshold variability in the central and midperipheral visual field.

A Funkhouser1, F Fankhauser.   

Abstract

Two visual field indices, the mean defect (MD) of Flammer and the mean deviation (MD) of Heijl, have found wide acceptance among perimetrists. We compared these indices in 169 visual fields from normal- and high-tension glaucomatous eyes. Visual field damage in these eyes varied from slight to severe. In computations of the mean deviation index, the threshold values are weighted by the threshold deviations obtained from normal eyes as a function of eccentricity. However, the present study shows that the differences between the two indices in the population studied are negligible. Thus, subsequent interpretation is not affected by the choice of index, and the two MD indices may be considered to be interchangeable for the types of visual fields used in this study and for program-G1 examinations carried out using Octopus automated perimeters. Since we found smaller increases in local intersubjective fluctuations as a function of eccentricity in 274 normal visual fields as compared with results published by others, caution is indicated for interpretation of the visual field using probability weighting.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1869056     DOI: 10.1007/bf00167873

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0721-832X            Impact factor:   3.117


  10 in total

1.  A clinical study of perimetric probability maps.

Authors:  A Heijl; P Asman
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1989-02

2.  Temporal summation and perimetry.

Authors:  C E Krakau
Journal:  Ophthalmic Res       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 2.892

3.  Reliability indexes of automated perimetric tests.

Authors:  J Katz; A Sommer
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1988-09

4.  Threshold fluctuations in the Humphrey Field Analyzer and in the Octopus automated perimeter.

Authors:  F Fankhauser; H Bebie; J Flammer
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 4.799

5.  The concept of visual field indices.

Authors:  J Flammer
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 3.117

6.  Normal variability of static perimetric threshold values across the central visual field.

Authors:  A Heijl; G Lindgren; J Olsson
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1987-11

7.  Problems related to the design of automatic perimeters.

Authors:  F Fankhauser
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  1979-09-17       Impact factor: 2.379

8.  Visual field interpretation with empiric probability maps.

Authors:  A Heijl; G Lindgren; J Olsson; P Asman
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1989-02

9.  A comparison of the mean defect and mean deviation indices within the central 28 degrees of the glaucomatous visual field.

Authors:  A T Funkhouser; F Fankhauser
Journal:  Jpn J Ophthalmol       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 2.447

10.  Quantification of glaucomatous visual field defects with automated perimetry.

Authors:  J Flammer; S M Drance; L Augustiny; A Funkhouser
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  1985-02       Impact factor: 4.799

  10 in total
  6 in total

1.  On weighted visual field indices.

Authors:  A Heijl; G Lindgren; J Olsson; P Asman
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 3.117

2.  A comparison of global indices between the Medmont Automated Perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer.

Authors:  John Landers; Alok Sharma; Ivan Goldberg; Stuart Graham
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2007-03-27       Impact factor: 4.638

3.  A comparison of unweighted and fluctuation-weighted indices (within the central 28 degrees of glaucomatous visual fields measured with the Octopus automated perimeter).

Authors:  A T Funkhouser; F Fankhauser
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  1991-09       Impact factor: 2.031

4.  A comparison of five methods for estimating general glaucomatous visual field depression.

Authors:  A Funkhouser; J Flammer; F Fankhauser; H P Hirsbrunner
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 3.117

5.  Normal visual fields measured with Octopus-Program G1. II. Global visual field indices.

Authors:  M Zulauf; R P LeBlanc; J Flammer
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 3.117

Review 6.  The discovery of the Flammer syndrome: a historical and personal perspective.

Authors:  Josef Flammer; Katarzyna Konieczka
Journal:  EPMA J       Date:  2017-05-22       Impact factor: 6.543

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.