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

Abstract

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.

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

“…Stimuli were Goldmann size III targets (4 mm 2 ) [25], presented for 250 msec. Sensitivity at each point was determined using a 4-2 strategy.…”

Visual Field Severity Indices Demonstrate Dose‐Dependent Visual Loss from Vigabatrin Therapy

“…The positioning of visual field isopters is highly influenced by patient and examiner reaction times (Lynn, 1969), which confounds the measurement of subtle clinical change. Automated full threshold static perimetry is not prone to these errors (Trope and Britton, 1987) but is not the optimal method for examination of the visual field periphery due to the long examination times required to gain adequate resolution of the field. Although VGB-attributed visual field defects detectable by static perimetry of the central visual field would occur later than peripheral loss detectable by kinetic perimetry, the technique enables statistical manipulation of measured thresholds, facilitating the investigation of drug dose parameters involved in retinal toxicity.…”

Comparison of Automated and Manual Perimetry in Patients With Blepharoptosis

“…The availability of Humphrey automated perimetry testing prompted studies describing the use of the technique for evaluating patients with blepharoptosis. 7,8 Previous studies have found the 2 tests to be comparable in their ability to detect visual field loss in glaucomatous lesions 9 and occipital lesions, 10 with the study by Trope and Britton 9 documenting shorter testing duration and higher patient preference with Goldmann perimetry. However, the findings of these studies may not necessarily be applicable to ptosis-related visual field loss because of the differences in the underlying mechanism of visual field loss in this patient population.…”