A comparison of Goldmann and Humphrey automated perimetry in patients with glaucoma.
AUTOR(ES)
Trope, G E
RESUMO
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.
ACESSO AO ARTIGO
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1041211Documentos Relacionados
- Pattern electroretinogram and automated perimetry in patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension.
- Comparative evaluation of oculokinetic perimetry and conventional perimetry in glaucoma.
- Evaluation of the Humphrey FASTPAC threshold program in glaucoma.
- Automated perimetry in glaucoma--room for improvement?
- Automated perimetry in patients with choroidal metastases.
