Conventional techniques of visual field examination. Part 4: Static perimetry: Interpretation - Perimetric indices - Follow-up - Perimetry in childhood;Konventionelle perimetrie. Teil 4: Statische perimetrie: Befundauswertung - Indizes - Verlaufskontrolle - Perimetrie im kindesalter

Ophthalmologe

Volumn 103, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 235-256

  Schiefer, U ^a   Patzold J ^a   Wabbels, B ^b   Dannheim, F ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL BONN   (Germany)

^c Asklepios Klinik Harburg   (Germany)

Author keywords

Automated static grid perimetry; Follow up; Perimetric indices; Psychophysics; Static perimetry

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATION; CHILDHOOD; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; LUMINANCE; PERIMETRY; PSYCHOPHYSICS; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM; STANDARDIZATION; TECHNOLOGY; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL FIELD DEFECT; VISUAL STIMULATION;

EID: 33645090945     PISSN: 0941293X     EISSN: 14330423     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00347-005-1304-5     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Arend KO, Redbrake C (2005) Update prospektiver Glaukomstudien. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 222:807-813
2. Artes PH, McLeod D, Henson DB (2002) Response time as a discriminator between true- and false-positive responses in suprathreshold perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 43:129-132
3. Bengtsson B, Heijl A (2000) False-negative responses in glaucoma perimetry: indicators of patient performance or test reliability? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41:2201-2204
4. Bengtsson B, Olsson J, Heijl A, Rootzen H (1997) A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry, SITA. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 75:368-375
5. Brown SM, Bradley JC, Monhart M, Baker DK (2005) Normal values for Octopus tendency oriented perimetry in children 7 through 13 years old. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 243:886-893
6. BVA (2002) Untersuchungsrichtlinien BVA. BVA (Berufsverband der Augenärzte Deutschlands e.V.), Düsseldorf
7. Carl Zeiss Meditec AG J (2004) Humphrey Glaukom-Progressionanalyse Software (GPA). Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena
8. CNTG study group (1998) Comparison of glaucomatous progression between untreated patients with normal-tension glaucoma and patients with therapeutically reduced intraocular pressures. Collaborative Normal-Tension Glaucoma Study Group. Am J Ophthalmol 126:487-497
9. Enoch JM, Aulhorn E, Dubois-Poulsen A et al. (1979) Perimetric standards and perimetric glossary of the international council of ophthalmology. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, The Hague
10. Esterman B (1967) Grid for scoring visual fields - I. Tangent Screen. Arch Ophthalmol 77:780-786
11. Esterman B (1968) Grid for scoring visual fields - II. Perimeter. Arch Ophthalmol 79:400-406
12. Esterman B (1983) Functional scoring of the binocular visual field. In: Greve EL, Heijl A (eds) Fifth International Visual Field Symposium. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, The Hague, pp 187-192
13. Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA, Poinoosawmy D et al. (1996) Analysis of visual field progression in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 80:40-48
14. Gillespie BW, Musch DC, Guire KE et al. (2003) The collaborative initial glaucoma treatment study: baseline visual field and test-retest variability. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44:2613-2620
15. Gramberg-Danielsen B (1999) Hinweise zur Begutachtung in der Augenheilkunde. Ophthalmologe 96:841-847
16. Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B et al. (2003) Measuring visual field progression in the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 81:286-293
17. Jansonius NM (2005) Towards an optimal perimetric strategy for progression detection in glaucoma: from fixed-space to adaptive inter-test intervals. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol (epub ahead of print)
18. Katz J (1999) Scoring systems for measuring progression of visual field loss in clinical trials of glaucoma treatment. Ophthalmology 106:391-395
19. Katz J, Sommer A (1988) Reliability indexes of automated perimetric tests. Arch Ophthalmol 106:1252-1254
20. Katz J, Sommer A, Gaasterland DE, Anderson DR (1991) Comparison of analytic algorithms for detecting glaucomatous visual field loss. Arch Ophthalmol 109:1684-1689
21. Kellner JL, Johnson CA, Spurr JO et al. (2000) Confirmation of visual field abnormalities in the ocular hypertension treatment study. Arch Ophthalmol 118:1187-1194
22. Miglior S, Zeyen T, Pfeiffer N, Cunha-Vaz J (2002) The European glaucoma prevention study design and baseline description of the participants. Ophthalmology 109:1612-1621
23. Morales J, Brown SM (2001)The feasibility of short automated static perimetry in children. Ophthalmology 108:157-162
24. Nelson-Quigg JM, Twelker JD, Johnson CA (1989) Response properties of normal observers and patients during automated perimetry. Arch Ophthalmol 107:1612-1615
25. Rabineau PA, Flammer J (1989) Fehlerquellen in der automatisierten statischen Perimetrie. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 194:307-319
26. Safran AB, Laffi GL, Bullinger A et al. (1996) Feasibility of automated visual field examination in children between 5 and 8 years of age. Br J Ophthalmol 80:515-518
27. Schiefer U, Paetzold J, Dannheim F (2005) Konventionelle Perimetrie, Teil 1 Einführung - Grundbegriffe. Ophthalmologe 102:627-646
28. Schiefer U, Paetzold J, Dannheim F (2005) Konventionelle Perimetrie, Teil 2: Konfrontationsperimetrie - Kinetische Perimetrie. Ophthalmologe 102:821-830
29. Schiefer U, Paetzold J, Wabbels B, Dannheim F (2006) Konventionelle Perimetrie, Teil 3: Statische Perimetrie: Raster - Strategien - Befunddarstellung. Ophthalmologe 103:149-165
30. Schiefer U, Strasburger H, Becker ST et al. (2001) Reaction time in automated kinetic perimetry: effects of stimulus luminance, eccentricity, and movement direction. Vision Res 41:2157-2164
31. Traverse CE, Walt JG, Kelly SP et al. (2005) Direct costs of glaucoma and severity of the disease: a multinational long term study of resource utilisation in Europe. Br J Ophthalmol 89:1245-1249
32. Tschopp C, Safran AB, Laffi JL et al. (1995) Automated static perimetry in the child: methodologic and practical problems. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 206:416-419
33. Tschopp C, Safran AB, Viviani P et al. (1998) Automated visual field examination in children aged 5-8 years. Part I: experimental validation of a testing procedure. Vision Res 38:2203-2210
34. Tschopp C, Safran AB, Viviani P et al. (1998) Automated visual field examination in children aged 5-8 years. Part II: normative values. Vision Res 38:2211-2218
35. Vesti E, Johnson CA, Chauhan BC (2003) Comparison of different methods for detecting glaucomatous visual field progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44:3873-3879
36. Viswanathan AC, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA (1997) Early detection of visual field progression in glaucoma: a comparison of PROGRESSOR and STATPAC 2. Br J Ophthalmol 81:1037-1042
37. Vivell PMO (2005) Gesichtsfeld und Beruf. Z Prakt Augenheilkd 26:12-18
38. Vonthein R, Paetzold J, Stumpp F et al. (2004) Criteria for progression of glaucomatous visual field loss considering slope and scatter of local serial differential luminance sensitivity data. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 45:E235
39. Wabbels BK, Schiefer U (1999) Altersabhängige " Fehlerquoten" bei der automatischen Rasterkampimetrie mit hellen und dunklen Stimuli. Ophthalmologe 96:813-821
40. Wabbels BK, Wilscher S (2005) Feasibility and outcome of automated static perimetry in children using (continuous light increment perimetry) CLIP and fast threshold perimetry. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 83:664-669
41. Wall M, Maw RJ, Stanek KE, Chauhan BC (1996) The psychometric function and reaction times of automated perimetry in normal and abnormal areas of the visual field in patients with glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 37:878-885
42. Weber J, Dannheim F, Dannheim D (1990) The topographical relationship between optic disc and visual field in glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Copenh 68:568-574
43. Weber J, Schiefer U, Kolling G (2004) Vorschlag für die funktionelle Bewertung von Gesichtsfeldausfällen mit einem Punktesystem. Ophthalmologe 101:1030-1033