Literature DB >> 3307897

A comparison of Goldmann and Humphrey automated perimetry in patients with glaucoma.

G E Trope1, R Britton.   

Abstract

Humphrey automated threshold perimetry (Program 30-2) was performed on 42 eyes of 25 patients with glaucoma to determine both the sensitivity and specificity of automated perimetry in detecting glaucomatous visual field defects. Automated perimetry sensitivity was 90.38%, while automated perimetry specificity was 91%. Fifty-two patients and a technician took part in a survey to determine their preference for either test. Patients generally preferred having Goldmann perimetry. The technician favoured Humphrey automated perimetry. Program 30-2 on the automated perimeter took 25% longer to perform than Goldmann perimetry.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3307897      PMCID: PMC1041211          DOI: 10.1136/bjo.71.7.489

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0007-1161            Impact factor:   4.638


  4 in total

1.  Computerised perimetry.

Authors:  A Heijl
Journal:  Trans Ophthalmol Soc U K       Date:  1985

2.  A modification of the Armaly visual field screening technique for glaucoma.

Authors:  W J Rock; S M Drance; R W Morgan
Journal:  Can J Ophthalmol       Date:  1971-10       Impact factor: 1.882

3.  A clinical comparison of visual field testing with a new automated perimeter, the Humphrey Field Analyzer, and the Goldmann perimeter.

Authors:  R W Beck; T J Bergstrom; P R Lichter
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  1985-01       Impact factor: 12.079

4.  A clinical comparison of three computerized automatic perimeters in the detection of glaucoma defects.

Authors:  A Heijl; S M Drance
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1981-05
  4 in total
  8 in total

1.  Organization of area hV5/MT+ in subjects with homonymous visual field defects.

Authors:  Amalia Papanikolaou; Georgios A Keliris; T Dorina Papageorgiou; Ulrich Schiefer; Nikos K Logothetis; Stelios M Smirnakis
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2018-04-06       Impact factor: 6.556

2.  Periodic health examination, 1995 update: 3. Screening for visual problems among elderly patients. Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination.

Authors: 
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1995-04-15       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  Automated perimetry in patients with choroidal metastases.

Authors:  F M Rahhal; D H Abramson; C A Servodidio; H S Abramson
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 4.638

4.  A computerized perimeter for assessing modality-specific visual field loss.

Authors:  Finnegan J Calabro; Lucia M Vaina
Journal:  Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc       Date:  2011

5.  Characterization of Central Visual Field Loss in End-stage Glaucoma by Unsupervised Artificial Intelligence.

Authors:  Mengyu Wang; Jorryt Tichelaar; Louis R Pasquale; Lucy Q Shen; Michael V Boland; Sarah R Wellik; Carlos Gustavo De Moraes; Jonathan S Myers; Pradeep Ramulu; MiYoung Kwon; Osamah J Saeedi; Hui Wang; Neda Baniasadi; Dian Li; Peter J Bex; Tobias Elze
Journal:  JAMA Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-02-01       Impact factor: 7.389

6.  The volume of tumor mass and visual field defect in patients with pituitary macroadenoma.

Authors:  Jung Pil Lee; In Won Park; Yun Suk Chung
Journal:  Korean J Ophthalmol       Date:  2011-01-17

7.  Retinal specific measurement of dark-adapted visual function: validation of a modified microperimeter.

Authors:  Michael D Crossland; Vy A Luong; Gary S Rubin; Fred W Fitzke
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2011-02-08       Impact factor: 2.209

8.  Visual Motion Coherence Responses in Human Visual Cortex.

Authors:  Andriani Rina; Amalia Papanikolaou; Xiaopeng Zong; Dorina T Papageorgiou; Georgios A Keliris; Stelios M Smirnakis
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2022-03-02       Impact factor: 4.677

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.