A Clinical Comparison of Three Computerized Automatic Perimeters in the Detection of Glaucoma Defects

Heijl, Anders; Drance, Stephen M.

doi:10.1001/archopht.1981.03930010832008

Cited by 74 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We do not believe, however, that there were any important differences between the two instruments in their ability to identify repeatable glaucomatous field loss. Some early studies reported similar sensitivities and specificities between the Competer and Octopus perimeters (Haag-Streit, Switzerland), and between the Octopus and Humphrey Field Analyzer perimeters [12,22].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Diurnal IOP fluctuation: not an independent risk factor for glaucomatous visual field loss in high-risk ocular hypertension

Bengtsson

Heijl

2005

Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Diurnal IOP fluctuation: not an independent risk factor for glaucomatous visual field loss in high-risk ocular hypertension

Bengtsson

Heijl

2005

Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…'5 The criteria for abnormality with the Humphrey automated perimeter were: (1) All peripheral test points were excluded to avoid lens rim artefact. (2) Test points immediately above and below the blind spot were excluded.…”

Section: Analysis Of Visual Fieldsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Trope

Britton

1987

British Journal of Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY 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.There are a number of automated perimeters on the market. These computerised perimeters all perform visual field tests using preprogrammed and/or programmable test logics. Some of these perimeters can determine retinal threshold sensitivity, and their performance in patients with glaucoma has been favourably compared to that of standard, manual perimetry (Fig. 1).'The Humphrey automated perimeter is a new and relatively inexpensive automated perimeter that can perform both relatively rapid suprathreshold static perimetry for glaucoma screening and threshold static perimetry. Threshold perimetry allows for quantification and therefore follow-up of patients with glaucomatous visual field defects. Recent reports have indicated that the Humphrey perimeter can be favourably compared with conventional manual perimeters.2' We are not, however, aware of studies comparing the sensitivity and specificity of this automated perimeter with standard Goldmann perimetry in patients with glaucoma.The purpose of this study was two-fold. First we wished to determine patient and technician preference for either machine. Secondly, we wished to determine the sensitivity and specificity of Humphrey automated perimetry using the Goldmann perimeter as standard in patients with glaucoma.

show abstract

“…It is now well established that threshold-measuring or supraliminal threshold-related computerized perimetrv detects glaucomatous field loss more accurately than "routine' manual perimetry (e.g. He$ 1977;Schmied 1980;Dyster-Aas et al 1980: Krieglstein et al 1981) and actually has a sensitivity just as high as very time-consuming combined static and kinetic manual perimetry -a type of visual field testing which unfortunately is very difficult to employ in most clinical settings Heijl& Drance 1981).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Frequency Distribution of Earliest Glaucomatous Visual Field Defects Documented by Automatic Perimetry

Heijl

Lundqvist

1984

Acta Ophthalmologica

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

2500-3000 eyes with ocular hypertension, with or without established glaucoma in the fellow eye, were followed with automatic perimetry for several years. Forty-five eyes showed a documented change from repeated normal fields to reproducible glaucomatous visual field loss. The location of the defective points in the first pathological field of each eye was registered. The resulting frequency distribution is shown and discussed.

show abstract

A Clinical Comparison of Three Computerized Automatic Perimeters in the Detection of Glaucoma Defects

Cited by 74 publications

References 13 publications

Diurnal IOP fluctuation: not an independent risk factor for glaucomatous visual field loss in high-risk ocular hypertension

Diurnal IOP fluctuation: not an independent risk factor for glaucomatous visual field loss in high-risk ocular hypertension

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

The Frequency Distribution of Earliest Glaucomatous Visual Field Defects Documented by Automatic Perimetry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About