Literature DB >> 3046588

Reliability indexes of automated perimetric tests.

J Katz1, A Sommer.   

Abstract

The "reliability" of a subject's automated perimetric test result is generally assessed by three measures: fixation loss and false-positive and false-negative rates. These reliability criteria were examined for 76 glaucomatous and 248 normal subjects who underwent visual field testing (C-30-2 program; Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer, Allergan Humphrey, San Leandro, Calif). Of the examination results, 45% in glaucomatous subjects and 30% in normal controls were considered unreliable with the use of the manufacturer's reliability criteria. Most test results were unreliable because they failed to meet the criterion for fixation loss. The greater rejection rate among glaucomatous subjects was entirely due to their higher rate of false-negative responses. Factors such as age, pupil diameter, and visual acuity did not explain the difference between the false-negative rates of glaucomatous patients and normal subjects.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3046588     DOI: 10.1001/archopht.1988.01060140412043

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


  21 in total

1.  Use of a portable head mounted perimetry system to assess bedside visual fields.

Authors:  D A Hollander; N J Volpe; M L Moster; G T Liu; L J Balcer; K D Judy; S L Galetta
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 4.638

Review 2.  [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

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

Authors:  A Funkhouser; F Fankhauser
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 3.117

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

Authors:  M A Cascairo; W C Stewart; S E Sutherland
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 3.117

5.  Factors that influence the prevalence of positive catch trials in glaucoma patients.

Authors:  M Reynolds; W C Stewart; S Sutherland
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 3.117

6.  The time course of visual field recovery following transphenoidal surgery for pituitary adenomas: predictive factors for a good outcome.

Authors:  K K Gnanalingham; S Bhattacharjee; R Pennington; J Ng; N Mendoza
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 10.154

7.  Effect of different stimulus configurations on the visual evoked potential (VEP).

Authors:  Naveen K Yadav; Diana P Ludlam; Kenneth J Ciuffreda
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-03-20       Impact factor: 2.379

8.  Interpreting the multifocal visual evoked potential: the effects of refractive errors, cataracts, and fixation errors.

Authors:  B J Winn; E Shin; J G Odel; V C Greenstein; D C Hood
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 4.638

9.  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

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.