Literature DB >> 2402414

Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss. The effect of patient reliability.

J Katz1, A Sommer.   

Abstract

Eighty-eight glaucoma patients and 252 normal subjects underwent C-30-2 testing on the Humphrey Field Analyzer. The effect of fixation losses, high false-positive and false-negative response rates on visual field test results was assessed using the mirror image method of detecting asymmetry across the horizontal meridian, and the Humphrey STATPAC pattern standard deviation (PSD) and mean deviation (MD). Glaucoma patients with poor fixation (greater than or equal to 20%) had less depressed fields and fewer localized defects than those with good fixation. Fixation loss did not affect measures of localized defects or generalized depression among normal subjects. High false-positive rates (greater than or equal to 10%) were associated with less-depressed visual fields among glaucoma patients and normal subjects. Visual fields were depressed by an average of 9 dB for glaucoma patients and 7 dB for normal subjects with high false-negative rates (greater than or equal to 33%), when compared with those with low false-negative rates. Apparent localized defects were observed among normal subjects with high false-negative rates. Most of these defects were located in the superior nasal and adjacent arcuate area.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2402414     DOI: 10.1016/s0161-6420(90)32467-3

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


  14 in total

Review 1.  [Assessment of risk factors for the occurrence of open angle glaucoma : Guidelines of the German Ophthalmological Society and the Professional Association of Ophthalmologists in Germany].

Authors: 
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 1.059

2.  Influence of missed catch trials on the visual field in normal subjects.

Authors:  F Fankhauser
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 3.117

Review 3.  Risk factors for open-angle glaucoma and recommendations for glaucoma screening.

Authors:  Alexander K Schuster; Felix M Wagner; Norbert Pfeiffer; Esther M Hoffmann
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2021-04-21       Impact factor: 1.059

4.  [Conventional perimetry. Antiquated or indispensable for functional glaucoma diagnostics?].

Authors:  F Tonagel; B Voykov; U Schiefer
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 1.059

5.  Relationship between visual acuity and visual field and its reproducibility in patients with retinitis pigmentosa.

Authors:  Ryo Asaoka; Manabu Miyata; Akio Oishi; Yuri Fujino; Hiroshi Murata; Keiko Azuma; Ryo Obata; Tatsuya Inoue
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2022-04-20       Impact factor: 3.775

6.  Combining Optical Coherence Tomography and Fundus Photography to Improve Glaucoma Screening.

Authors:  Tomoyuki Watanabe; Yoshimune Hiratsuka; Yoshiyuki Kita; Hiroshi Tamura; Ryo Kawasaki; Tetsuji Yokoyama; Motoko Kawashima; Tadashi Nakano; Masakazu Yamada
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-27

7.  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

8.  Is multifocal electroretinography an early predictor of glaucoma?

Authors:  Haydar Gölemez; Nilgün Yıldırım; Ahmet Özer
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-01-20       Impact factor: 2.379

9.  Development and evaluation of a contrast sensitivity perimetry test for patients with glaucoma.

Authors:  Aliya Hot; Mitchell W Dul; William H Swanson
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2008-03-31       Impact factor: 4.799

10.  Distribution of glaucoma in the major religious communities of a north Indian town: a hospital survey.

Authors:  Smita Agarwal; M A Shamshad; Dishanter Goel; Maryem Ansari
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2013-03-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.