Glaucoma follow-up when converting from long to short perimetric threshold tests

Archives of Ophthalmology

Volumn 118, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 489-493

  Heijl, Anders ^a,b   Bengtsson, Boel ^a   Patella, V Michael ^b  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^b Humphrey Systems   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; FOLLOW UP; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCOTOMA; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL THRESHOLD;

EID: 0034088692     PISSN: 00039950     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/archopht.118.4.489     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Schaumberger M, Schafer B, Lachenmayr BJ. Glaucomatous visual fields: FASTPAC versus Full Threshold strategy of the Humphrey Field Analyzer. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1995;36:1390-1397.
2. Nordmann JP, Denis P, Nguer Y, Mouton-Chopin D, Saraux H. Static threshold visual field in glaucoma with the Fastpac algorithm of the Humphrey Field Analyzer: is the gain in examination time offset by any loss of information? Eur J Ophthalmol. 1994;4:105-110.
3. O'Brien C, Poinoosawmy D, Wu J, Hitchings R. Evaluation of the Humphrey FASTPAC threshold program in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 1994;78:516-519.
4. Flanagan JG, Wild JM, Trope GE. Evaluation of FASTPAC, a new strategy for threshold estimation with the Humphrey Field Analyzer, in a glaucomatous population. Ophthalmology. 1993;100:949-954.
5. Zulauf M, Fehlmann P, Flammer J. Perimetry with normal Octopus technique and Weber "dynamic" technique: initial results with reference to reproducibility of measurements in glaucoma patients. Ophthalmologe. 1996;93:420-427.
6. Vivell PM, Lachenmayr BJ, Zimmermann P. Comparative study of various perimetry strategies. Fortschr Ophthalmol. 1991;88:819-823.
7. Bengtsson B, Olsson J, Heijl A, Rootzén H. A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry, SITA. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1997;75:368-375.
8. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. SITA Fast, a new rapid perimetric threshold test: description of methods and evaluation in patients with manifest and suspect glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1998;76:431-437.
9. Heijl A. Time changes of contrast thresholds during automatic perimetry. Acta Ophthalmol. 1977;55:696-708.
10. Heijl A, Drance SM. Changes in differential threshold in patients with glaucoma during prolonged perimetry. Br J Ophthalmol. 1983;67:512-516.
11. Langerhorst CT. Automated Perimetry in Glaucoma. Amstelveen, the Netherlands: Kugler Publications; 1988:57.
12. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J. A package for statistical analysis of visual fields. Doc Ophthalmol Proc. 1987;49:154-168.
13. Åsman P, Heijl A. Glaucoma Hemifield Test: automated visual field evaluation. Arch Ophthalmol. 1992;110:812-819.
14. Pacey IE, Wild JM, Cubbidge RP, Hancock S, Cunliffe IA. The between-subject, between-algorithm variability of normal sensitivity with the SITA Standard and SITA Fast threshold algorithms. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1998:39(suppl):493.
15. Shirato S, Inoue R, Fukushima K, Suzuki Y. Clinical evaluation of SITA: a new family of perimetric testing strategies. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1999;237:29-34.
16. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. Comparing significance and magnitude of glaucomatous visual field detects using the SITA and Full Threshold strategies. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1999;77:143-146.
17. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. Inter-subject variability and normal limits of the SITA Standard, SITA Fast, and the Humphrey Full Threshold computerized perimetry strategies, SITA STATPAC. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1999;77:125-129.