Visual Field Screening in Glaucoma

Rock, W.

doi:10.1001/archopht.1973.01000040289005

Cited by 48 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…First, however, it was necessary to define what it is that the perimetrist does and how to optimize the quality of the test including detection of lesions and measurement of visual deficits. In this development, in many instruments, major attention has been paid to glaucoma detection (Rock et al, 1971(Rock et al, , 1973 rather than to the broad range of other perimetric uses, i.e., neuroophthahnologic, geriatric, macular area function testing, driver or transport vision screening (Keltner and Johnson, 1980), ergophthalmological applications, etc.…”

Section: Automation Of Perimetric Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Does the individual seek a screening device or one which offers a wide range of perimetric examination possibilities? Actually, units available range from simple screening functions-mainly for glaucomatous changes in the central field (Rock et al, 1971(Rock et al, , 1973 up to devices conducting rather sophisticated analyses of the visual field. Most devices, with few exceptions (such as the Perimetron manufactured by Coherent) utilize static rather kinetic perimetry.…”

Section: Automation Of Perimetric Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Simpler screeners are the Automated Tangent Screen and the Coherent Ocuplot. Here the screening is largely for glaucoma and is based (as are most other devices) on the static only portion of the Armaly-Drance glaucoma screening test regime (Rock et al, 1971(Rock et al, , 1973. More advanced instruments have greater numbers of test points, and they provide a variety of suprathreshold screening tests including glaucoma, neurological (test points located on both sides of the vertical meridian), and central field tests (often a modification of the blind spot test point array with shifted fixation).…”

Section: Automation Of Perimetric Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Perimetry, today and tomorrow

Enoch

1983

Doc Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perimetry is clearly in an explosive stage of development. Here, an attempt is made to bring together major developments and put them into an orderly perspective. The projection-bowl-perimeters of Bern and Tübingen set the stage. Standardization provides the base for future development and data exchange. Automation and inclusion of computational procedures enhance the possibility of broad utilization for better screening and advanced testing. New test procedures make possible extremely fine localization of functions and allow superior definition of areas of involvement in pathology. New fundus perimeters make possible instantaneous fine correlations between functional changes and observed retinal anatomic lesions.

show abstract

Section: Automation Of Perimetric Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Automation Of Perimetric Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Automation Of Perimetric Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Perimetry, today and tomorrow

Enoch

1983

Doc Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The logical consequence is the design of program-guided manual methods (6, 2, 4, 8) or even perfectly automated devices (9). Semi-automated instruments have recently been developed, which might be simple enough to be operated by untrained personnel in an ophthalmological office and still efficient enough to replace a tiresome manual perimetry by autimatically giving reproducible field plots of sufficient quality (7).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical experiences with a semi-automated perimeter (Fieldmaster)

Dannheim¹

1980

Int Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The perimeter Fieldmaster 101 has been applied to 178 eyes in comparison with a Tuebingen and a Goldmann perimeter. The Fieldmaster allows for a fast and relatively accurate screening test in the detection-phase of perimetry, independently of the skill of the perimetrist. This instrument missed only 2.6% of all pathological fields found by the Goldmann perimeter, and 10% of defective fields taken with the Tuebingen perimeter. In one third of the abnormal findings of the Fieldmaster the defects were even more realistic than in the plots of the Goldmann perimeter, as proven by the static and kinetic fields of the Tuebingen perimeter. The abilities of the Fieldmaster in the assessment-phase of perimetry are limited. Program-operated perimeters like the Fieldmaster are time-saving, but do not replace a perimetrist, especially in the psychological care of patients.

show abstract

“…Technik(10,11), die von Rock und Mitarb. modifiziert wurde(12,13). Auch bei der Armaly-Technik ist eine gewisse Inzidenz falsch-positiver Befunde unvermeidlich.…”

unclassified

Das Computer-Perimeter Fieldmaster-200^®

Gk¹,

Glaab²,

Gramer³

1981

Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The central visual fields of 119 glaucomatous eyes (78 patients) were evaluated under controlled conditions using the Goldmann kinetic perimeter and the Fieldmaster-200 automatic supra-threshold computer perimeter. Where there were qualitative differences between the two instruments, the high-resolution program 61 of the Octopus computer perimeter was used as a reference system. Central visual fields of 101 eyes were also studied using the Octopus 31 program. The Fieldmaster-200 was found to be more sensitive than manual kinetic perimetry in identifying early glaucomatous visual field defects. However, the specificity of the Fieldmaster instrument was significantly lower than that of the Goldmann perimeter. Taking into account the perimetry of the total central visual field using the Octopus program 31, the Octopus itself was found to be the most sensitive of the three methods of detecting early visual field loss. Problems related to the specificity and supra-threshold perimetry that is not adapted to the eccentricity of the test stimulus, as the case with the Fieldmaster-200, are discussed.

show abstract

Visual Field Screening in Glaucoma

Cited by 48 publications

References 8 publications

Perimetry, today and tomorrow

Perimetry, today and tomorrow

Clinical experiences with a semi-automated perimeter (Fieldmaster)

Das Computer-Perimeter Fieldmaster-200^®

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Visual Field Screening in Glaucoma

Cited by 48 publications

References 8 publications

Perimetry, today and tomorrow

Perimetry, today and tomorrow

Clinical experiences with a semi-automated perimeter (Fieldmaster)

Das Computer-Perimeter Fieldmaster-200®

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Das Computer-Perimeter Fieldmaster-200^®