Literature DB >> 6549288

The qualitative comparative analysis of the visual field using computer assisted, semi-automated and manual instrumentation: III. Clinical analysis.

J G Flanagan, J M Wild, D A Barnes, B A Gilmartin, P A Good, S J Crews.   

Abstract

A comparative evaluation of the Octopus automated perimeter (Programmes 21 and 31), the Goldmann Bowl perimeter, the Bjerrum Screen and the Friedmann VFAs Mk I and Mk II was carried out on a heterogeneous sample of 75 patients. Field loss was categorized using a modification of the classifications proposed by Greve (1982). The results were analysed using the Level 4 analysis developed by Flanagan, Wild, Barnes, Gilmartin, Good and Crews (1984a). The performance of the various test logics was found to differ between the categories of field defect.

Entities:  

Mesh：

Year:  1984        PMID： 6549288     DOI： 10.1007/bf00679798

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol        ISSN： 0012-4486            Impact factor:   2.379


  6 in total

1.  How important are peripheral fields.

Authors:  F G BLUM; L K GATES; B R JAMES
Journal:  AMA Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1959-01

2.  Practical Perimetry: Construction and Operation of the Tangent Screen.

Authors:  A J McLean
Journal:  Can Med Assoc J       Date:  1937-06       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  Visual field analyser and threshold.

Authors:  E L Greve
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  1971-10       Impact factor: 4.638

4.  The qualitative comparative analysis of the visual field using computer assisted, semi-automated and manual instrumentation: I. Scoring system.

Authors:  J G Flanagan; J M Wild; D A Barnes; B A Gilmartin; P A Good; S J Crews
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  1984-12-15       Impact factor: 2.379

5.  The qualitative comparative analysis of the visual field using computer assisted, semi-automated and manual instrumentation: II. Statistical analysis.

Authors:  J M Wild; J G Flanagan; D A Barnes; B A Gilmartin; P A Good; S J Crews
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  1984-12-15       Impact factor: 2.379

6.  Performance of computer assisted perimeters.

Authors:  E L Greve
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  1982-12-01       Impact factor: 2.379
  6 in total
  6 in total

1.  Impact of annual dosing with ivermectin on progression of onchocercal visual field loss.

Authors:  S N Cousens; A Cassels-Brown; I Murdoch; O E Babalola; D Jatau; N D Alexander; J E Evans; P Danboyi; A Abiose; B R Jones
Journal:  Bull World Health Organ       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 9.408

2.  Stimulus investigative range in the perimetry of retinitis pigmentosa: some preliminary findings.

Authors:  J M Wood; J M Wild; P A Good; S J Crews
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  1986-09-30       Impact factor: 2.379

3.  The interpretation of the differential threshold in the central visual field.

Authors:  J M Wild; J M Wood; J G Flanagan; P A Good; S J Crews
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  1986-02-28       Impact factor: 2.379

4.  The qualitative comparative analysis of the visual field using computer assisted, semi-automated and manual instrumentation: II. Statistical analysis.

Authors:  J M Wild; J G Flanagan; D A Barnes; B A Gilmartin; P A Good; S J Crews
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  1984-12-15       Impact factor: 2.379

5.  Manipulation of sensitivity in visual field investigation.

Authors:  D A Barnes; J M Wild; J G Flanagan; P A Good; S J Crews
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  1985-06-30       Impact factor: 2.379

6.  Baseline visual field findings in the Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension Treatment Trial (IIHTT).

Authors:  John L Keltner; Chris A Johnson; Kimberly E Cello; Michael Wall
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2014-04-29       Impact factor: 4.799
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.