A comparison of global indices between the Medmont Automated Perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer

British Journal of Ophthalmology

Volumn 91, Issue 10, 2007, Pages 1285-1287

  Landers, John ^a,b,g   Sharma, Alok ^a,c   Goldberg, Ivan ^a,d,e   Graham, Stuart ^a,f  

^a Eye Associates   (Australia)

^b ROYAL ADELAIDE HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^c Riverina Eye Care Centre   (Australia)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^e SYDNEY EYE HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^f UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^g Park House   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTRAOCULAR HYPERTENSION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OPEN ANGLE GLAUCOMA; PERIMETER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; VISUAL FIELD;

FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OCULAR HYPERTENSION; PERIMETRY; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 34848892752     PISSN: 00071161     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2007.114926     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Heijl A. Automatic perimetry in glaucoma visual screening; a clinical study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1976;200:21-37.
2. Johnson CA, Keltner JL. Automated suprathreshold static perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol 1980;89:731-41.
3. Li SG, Spaeth GL, Scimeca HA, et al. Clinical experiences with the use of an automated perimeter (Octopus) in the diagnosis and management of patients with glaucoma and neurologic diseases. Ophthalmology 1979;86:1302-12.
4. Koucheki B, Nouri-Mahdavi K, Patel G, et al. Visual field changes after cataract extraction: the AGIS experience. Am J Ophthalmol 2004;138:1022-8.
5. Flammer J. The concept of visual field indices. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1986;224:389-92.
6. Flammer J, Drance SM, Augustiny L, et al. Quantification of glaucomatous visual field defects with automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1985;26:176-81.
7. Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Brandt JD, et al. The Ocular Hypertensive Treatment Study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120:714-20.
8. Medeiros FA, Weinreb RN, Sample PA, et al. Validation of a predictive model to estimate the risk of conversion from ocular hypertension to glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2005;123:1351-60.
9. Landers J, Sharma A, Goldberg I, et al. A comparison of perimetric results with Medmont and Humphrey perimeters. Br J Ophthalmol 2003;87:690-4.
10. Miller NR. Topical diagnosis of lesions in the visual sensory pathway. In: Miller NR, eds. Walsh and Hoyt's clinical neuro-ophthalmology, Vol 1, 4th edn. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1982:108-52.
11. Zhang L, Drance SM, Douglas GR. The ability of Medmont M600 automated perimetry to detect threats to fixation. J Glaucoma 1997;6:259-62.
12. Vingrys AJ, Helfrich KA. The Opticom M-600: a new LED automated perimeter. Clin Exp Optom 1990;73:3-17.
13. Pye D, Herse P, Nguyen H, et al. Conversion factor for comparison of data from Humphrey and Medmont automated perimeters. Clin Exp Optom 1999;82:11-13.
14. Funkhouser A, Fankhauser F. The effects of weighting the "mean defect" visual field index according to threshold variability in the central and midperipheral visual field. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1991;229:228-31.
15. Vingrys AJ, Zele AJ. Robust indices of clinical data: meaningless means. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005;46:4353-7.