Literature DB >> 2818281

Response properties of normal observers and patients during automated perimetry.

J M Nelson-Quigg1, J D Twelker, C A Johnson.   

Abstract

Automated perimetry was performed on both eyes of 54 normal subjects, 36 patients with ocular hypertension and normal visual fields, and 20 patients with early glaucomatous visual field loss to evaluate false-positive errors, false-negative errors, fixation losses, consistency of double determinations, and testing time. For all subject groups and response measures, large interindividual variation was found. No meaningful age-related changes were obtained for false-negative errors, false-positive errors, fixation losses, or consistency of double determinations. Contrary to earlier reports, we found a low number of normal subjects and patients exceeding the 33% false-positive and false-negative limits established for the Humphrey Field Analyzer. A large number of normal subjects and patients, however, exceeded the 20% limits for fixation losses.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2818281     DOI: 10.1001/archopht.1989.01070020690029

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0003-9950


  9 in total

Review 1.  [Conventional techniques of visual field examination: part 4 Static perimetry: interpretation--perimetric indices--follow-up--perimetry in childhood].

Authors:  U Schiefer; J Pätzold; B Wabbels; F Dannheim
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2006-03       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

3.  Diabetes in primary open-angle glaucoma patients with inferior visual field defects.

Authors:  J H Zeiter; D H Shin
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 3.117

4.  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

5.  Effect of a patient training video on visual field test reliability.

Authors:  H Sherafat; P G D Spry; A Waldock; J M Sparrow; J P Diamond
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 4.638

6.  Evidence-based Criteria for Assessment of Visual Field Reliability.

Authors:  Jithin Yohannan; Jiangxia Wang; Jamie Brown; Balwantray C Chauhan; Michael V Boland; David S Friedman; Pradeep Y Ramulu
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2017-07-01       Impact factor: 12.079

7.  Factors Predicting a Greater Likelihood of Poor Visual Field Reliability in Glaucoma Patients and Suspects.

Authors:  Inas F Aboobakar; Jiangxia Wang; Balwantray C Chauhan; Michael V Boland; David S Friedman; Pradeep Y Ramulu; Jithin Yohannan
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2020-01-30       Impact factor: 3.283

8.  Comparison of Humphrey Field Analyzer and imo visual field test results in patients with glaucoma and pseudo-fixation loss.

Authors:  Hiroyasu Goukon; Kazunori Hirasawa; Masayuki Kasahara; Kazuhiro Matsumura; Nobuyuki Shoji
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-11-07       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Standard Reliability and Gaze Tracking Metrics in Glaucoma and Glaucoma Suspects.

Authors:  Andrew Steven Camp; Christopher P Long; Vincent Michael Patella; James A Proudfoot; Robert N Weinreb
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-07-17       Impact factor: 5.488

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.