Literature DB >> 2314842

Effect of patient experience on the results of automated perimetry in glaucoma suspect patients.

E B Werner1, T Krupin, A Adelson, M E Feitl.   

Abstract

The first four Octopus-automated visual field examinations of 29 patients with elevated intraocular pressure but apparently normal optic discs and Goldmann visual fields were studied for the presence of a learning effect on the visual field parameters of mean sensitivity, number of disturbed test locations, total field loss, and short-term fluctuation. A learning effect, if present, would manifest itself as an improvement in the visual field as patients become more experienced with the test. There was no apparent effect of patient experience on the mean sensitivity of the whole visual fields or the mean sensitivity of the test locations within 20 degrees of fixation. There was a significant (P = 0.012) increase in mean sensitivity for the test locations outside 20 degrees of fixation. There were significant (P less than 0.01) improvements in short-term fluctuation, total loss, and number of disturbed points between the first and second visual field examinations. The results indicated that there was a learning effect between the first and second automated visual field in glaucoma suspect patients who had previous experience with manual perimetry. It was not, however, very large in most patients and seems to be present in the peripheral portions of the visual field only. In most cases, it was not necessary to obtain more than two "baseline" examinations unless a patient demonstrated unusually high short-term fluctuation or had visual field defects inconsistent with the remainder of their clinical examination.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2314842     DOI: 10.1016/s0161-6420(90)32628-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ophthalmology        ISSN: 0161-6420            Impact factor:   12.079


  12 in total

1.  Baseline alterations in blue-on-yellow normal perimetric sensitivity.

Authors:  J M Wild; I D Moss
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 3.117

2.  How often do patients need visual field tests?

Authors:  A C Viswanathan; R A Hitchings; F W Fitzke
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 3.117

3.  Glaucoma detection with matrix and standard achromatic perimetry.

Authors:  Zvia Burgansky-Eliash; Gadi Wollstein; Avni Patel; Richard A Bilonick; Hiroshi Ishikawa; Larry Kagemann; William D Dilworth; Joel S Schuman
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2007-01-10       Impact factor: 4.638

4.  Evaluation of FASTPAC: a new strategy for threshold estimation with the Humphrey Field Analyser.

Authors:  J G Flanagan; I D Moss; J M Wild; C Hudson; L Prokopich; D Whitaker; E C O'Neill
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  1993-08       Impact factor: 3.117

5.  The influence of stimulus parameters on the visual field indices by automated projection perimetry.

Authors:  M Dengler-Harles; J M Wild; M D Cole; E C O'Neill
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 3.117

6.  Differences in the Relation Between Perimetric Sensitivity and Variability Between Locations Across the Visual Field.

Authors:  Stuart K Gardiner
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2018-07-02       Impact factor: 4.799

7.  Early diffusion evidence of retrograde transsynaptic degeneration in the human visual system.

Authors:  Kevin R Patel; Lenny E Ramsey; Nicholas V Metcalf; Gordon L Shulman; Maurizio Corbetta
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2016-06-15       Impact factor: 9.910

8.  Validating Variational Bayes Linear Regression Method With Multi-Central Datasets.

Authors:  Hiroshi Murata; Linda M Zangwill; Yuri Fujino; Masato Matsuura; Atsuya Miki; Kazunori Hirasawa; Masaki Tanito; Shiro Mizoue; Kazuhiko Mori; Katsuyoshi Suzuki; Takehiro Yamashita; Kenji Kashiwagi; Nobuyuki Shoji; Ryo Asaoka
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2018-04-01       Impact factor: 4.799

9.  Is there evidence for continued learning over multiple years in perimetry?

Authors:  Stuart K Gardiner; Shaban Demirel; Chris A Johnson
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 1.973

10.  Retinal nerve fiber layer defects and automated perimetry evaluation in ocular hypertensives.

Authors:  E Abecia; F M Honrubia
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 2.031

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.