Pathogenesis and Risk Factors of Glaucoma 1999
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-60203-0_16
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Disc Damage as a Prognostic and Therapeutic Consideration in the Management of Patients with Glaucoma

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The systems of disc and field grading used in this study are believed to be more appropriate, since no stereo photography of the optic nerve head was available and, as done in other studies (13,14) we had to consider a categorical manner to analyze different visual field perimeters during the follow-up period.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The systems of disc and field grading used in this study are believed to be more appropriate, since no stereo photography of the optic nerve head was available and, as done in other studies (13,14) we had to consider a categorical manner to analyze different visual field perimeters during the follow-up period.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because of the diversity of the visual field examinations methods over the extended follow-up period, a generic grading system was used to grade all glaucomatous field defects: grade 0 -no visual field defect present; grade I -nasal step or localized paracentral defect; grade II -nasal step and paracentral defect or a single arcuate defect; grade III -two arcuate scotomas or an altitudinal scotoma not encroaching on fixation; grade IV -advanced visual field loss with or without fixation loss (13) . Patients with ocular diseases that might mislead the interpretation of visual field testing were excluded.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The variables showed a strong positive correlation as the r value was 0.95 (approximately equal to one). Studies by James C Borrow et al also showed a similar observation with a r value of 0.68 between the DDLS score and mean deviation (field testing done by Humphrey field analyser) 12…”
Section: Field Indices In Various Ddls Scoresmentioning
confidence: 57%