The efficient use of perimetry for neuro-ophthalmic diagnosis

British Journal of Ophthalmology

Volumn 80, Issue 10, 1996, Pages 903-905

  Reitner, A ^a   Tittl, M ^a   Ergun, E ^a   Baradaran Dilmaghani, R ^a  

^a University Eye Clinic   (Austria)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ARTIFACT; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FATIGUE; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NEUROOPHTHALMOLOGY; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TIME; VISUAL FIELD;

EID: 0029860055     PISSN: 00071161     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bjo.80.10.903     Document Type: Article

References (6)

1. Wood JM, Wild JM, Hussey MK. Serial examination of the normal visual field using Octopus automated projection perimetry. Evidence for a learning effect. Acta Ophthalmol 1987;65:326-33.
2. Jacobs NA, Patterson IH. Variability of the hill of vision and its significance in automated perimetry. Br J Ophthalmol 1985;69:824-6.
3. Henson DB, Anderson R. Thresholds using single and multiple stimulus presentations. Perimetry Update 1988/89; 191-6.
4. Yi Li, Mills RP. Kinetic fixation improves threshold sensitivity in the central visual field. J Glaucoma 1992;1:108-16.
5. Chauhan BC, McCormick TA, Whelan JH, Mohandas RN. Variability of normal visual fields in a prospective study. Perimetry Update 1994/95;27-30.
6. Demirel S, Vingrys AJ. Acceptable false response rates for reliable perimetric outcomes. Perimetry Update 1994/95; 83-8.