Literature DB >> 2625206

The distribution of normal values in automated perimetry.

C Rutishauser1, J Flammer, A Haas.   

Abstract

From 354 visual fields of 137 normal subjects, various components of variance were calculated separately for each test location of the Octopus automated-perimetry program J0. The method of component analysis of variance was used. The following components were analyzed: interindividual variation (variation of visual-field measurements in different subjects), long-term fluctuation (variation of different visual-field measurements in the same subject), differences between the right and left eyes and fluctuation within one visual field test in one subject, i.e., short-term fluctuation. The results show increased variations at the center relative to the paracentral area and a slight increase with eccentricity.

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2625206     DOI: 10.1007/bf02169442

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


  9 in total

1.  Static perimetry: accuracy and fluctuations.

Authors:  H Bebie; F Fankhauser; J Spahr
Journal:  Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh)       Date:  1976-07

2.  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

3.  Influence of age on the visual fields of normal subjects.

Authors:  A Haas; J Flammer; U Schneider
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  1986-02-15       Impact factor: 5.258

4.  [What do glaucomatous visual fields really look like?].

Authors:  J Stürmer; B Gloor; H J Tobler
Journal:  Klin Monbl Augenheilkd       Date:  1984-05       Impact factor: 0.700

5.  [What new knowledge has automated perimetry with the Octopus brought on glaucomatous visual field changes?].

Authors:  B Gloor; J Stürmer; B Vökt
Journal:  Klin Monbl Augenheilkd       Date:  1984-04       Impact factor: 0.700

6.  What do glaucomatous visual fields really look like in fine-grid computerized profile perimetry?

Authors:  J Stürmer
Journal:  Dev Ophthalmol       Date:  1985

7.  Studies in the reproducibility of visual field areas in normal and glaucomatous subjects.

Authors:  S M Drance; V Berry; A Hughes
Journal:  Can J Ophthalmol       Date:  1966-01       Impact factor: 1.882

8.  Differential light threshold. Short- and long-term fluctuation in patients with glaucoma, normal controls, and patients with suspected glaucoma.

Authors:  J Flammer; S M Drance; M Zulauf
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1984-05

9.  Long-term fluctuations versus actual field loss in glaucoma patients.

Authors:  B P Gloor; B A Vökt
Journal:  Dev Ophthalmol       Date:  1985
  9 in total
  5 in total

1.  [Static fundus perimetry in normals. Microperimeter 1 versus SLO].

Authors:  C Springer; H E Völcker; K Rohrschneider
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 1.059

2.  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

3.  Normal visual fields measured with Octopus Program G1. I. Differential light sensitivity at individual test locations.

Authors:  M Zulauf
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 3.117

4.  Quantitative evaluation of the optic nerve head in early glaucoma.

Authors:  D F Garway-Heath; R A Hitchings
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 4.638

Review 5.  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

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.