Literature DB >> 3211477

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

E B Werner1, A Adelson, T Krupin.   

Abstract

The first four automated visual field examinations of 20 patients with clinically stable chronic open-angle glaucoma who had previously undergone manual perimetry were studied for the presence of a learning effect on mean sensitivity, number of disturbed test locations, total 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, total loss, or the number of disturbed test locations. There was a significant (P less than 0.0001) decrease in short-term fluctuation as measured by the root mean square between the first and second visual field examinations. These results indicate that a learning effect did not play an important role in the clinical interpretation of automated perimetry in patients with glaucoma who have previous experience with manual perimetry. In most cases, it was not necessary to obtain more than one "baseline" examination unless a patient demonstrated unusually high short-term fluctuation or had visual field defects inconsistent with the rest of the clinical examination.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3211477     DOI: 10.1016/s0161-6420(88)33111-8

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


  10 in total

1.  The learning and fatigue effect in automated perimetry.

Authors:  G Marra; J Flammer
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 3.117

2.  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

3.  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

4.  The influence of forward light scatter on the visual field indices in glaucoma.

Authors:  M Dengler-Harles; J M Wild; M D Cole; E C O'Neill; S J Crews
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 3.117

5.  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

6.  Perimetry--back to the future?

Authors:  R A Hitchings
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 4.638

7.  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

8.  Early detection of visual field progression in glaucoma: a comparison of PROGRESSOR and STATPAC 2.

Authors:  A C Viswanathan; F W Fitzke; R A Hitchings
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 4.638

9.  Interobserver agreement on visual field progression in glaucoma: a comparison of methods.

Authors:  A C Viswanathan; D P Crabb; A I McNaught; M C Westcott; D Kamal; D F Garway-Heath; F W Fitzke; R A Hitchings
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 4.638

10.  Reducing Spatial Uncertainty Through Attentional Cueing Improves Contrast Sensitivity in Regions of the Visual Field With Glaucomatous Defects.

Authors:  Jack Phu; Michael Kalloniatis; Sieu K Khuu
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2018-03-23       Impact factor: 3.283

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.