Effect of a patient training video on visual field test reliability

British Journal of Ophthalmology

Volumn 87, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 153-156

  Sherafat, Hooman ^a   Spry, P G D ^a   Waldock, A ^a   Sparrow, J M ^a   Diamond, J P ^a  

^a BRISTOL EYE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; EVALUATION; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL INFORMATION; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT EDUCATION; PATIENT GUIDANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RELIABILITY; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TRAINING; VIDEORECORDING; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL SYSTEM EXAMINATION;

AGED; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT EDUCATION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; VIDEOTAPE RECORDING; VISION TESTS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 0037311213     PISSN: 00071161     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bjo.87.2.153     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J. Reliability parameters in computerised perimetry. Seventh international visual field symposium, Amsterdam, 1986.
2. Katz J, Sommer A. Reliability indexes of automated perimetric tests. Arch Ophthalmol 1988;106:1252-4.
3. Bickler-Bluth M, Trick GL, Kolker AE, et al. Assessing the utilily of reliability indices for automated visual fields. Testing ocular hypertensives. Ophthalmology 1989;96:616-9.
4. Nelson-Quigg J, Twelker JD, Johnson CA. Response properties of normal observers and patients during automated perimetry. Arch Ophthalmol 1989;107:1612-15.
5. Johnson CA, Nelson-Quigg M. A prospective three-year study of response properties of normal subjects and patients during automated perimetry. Ophthalmology 1993;100:269-74.
6. Sanabria O, Feuer WJ, Anderson DR. Pseudo-loss of fixation in automated perimetry. Ophthalmology 1991;98:76-8.
7. Katz J, Sommer A, Witt K. Reliability of visual field results over repeated testing. Ophthalmology 1991;98:70-5.
8. Johnson LN, Aminlari A, Sassani JW. Effect of intermittent versus continuous patient monitoring on reliability indices during automated perimetry. Ophthalmology 1993;100:76-84.
9. Van Coevorden RE, Mills RP, Chen YY, et al. Continuous visual field test supervision may not always be necessary. Ophthalmology 1999;106:178-81.
10. Heijl A, Drance SM. Changes in differential threshold in patients with glaucoma during prolonged perimetry. Br J Ophthalmol 1983;67:512-16.
11. Katz J, Sommer A. Asymmetry ond variation in the normal hill of vision. Arch Ophthalmol 1986;104:65-8.
12. Hudson C, Wild JM, O'Neill EC. Fatigue effects during a single session of automated static threshold perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1994;35:268-80.
13. Hardage L, Stamper RL. Reliability indices for automated visual fields. Ophthalmology 1989;96:1810.
14. Kutzko KE, Brito CF, Wall M. Effect of instructions on conventional automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000;41:2006-13.
15. Spry PGD, Furber JE, Harrad RA. The effect of ocular dominance on visual field testing. Optom Vis Sci 2002;79:93-7.
16. Wood JM, Wilde JM, Hussey MK, et al. Serial examination of the normal visual field using Octopus automated projection perimetry. Evidence for learning effect. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1987;65:326-32.