Intersession repeatability of Humphrey perimetry measurements in patients with retinitis pigmentosa

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 48, Issue 10, 2007, Pages 4720-4724

  Kim, Linda S ^a   McAnany, J Jason ^a   Alexander, Kenneth R ^a   Fishman, Gerald A ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MEASUREMENT; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETINITIS PIGMENTOSA; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; TEST RETEST RELIABILITY; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL STIMULATION; ADOLESCENT; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD; VISUAL DISORDER;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERIMETRY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETINITIS PIGMENTOSA; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VISION DISORDERS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 35748939713     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.07-0690     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Grover S, Fishman GA, Anderson RJ, et al. Rate of visual field loss in retinitis pigmentosa. Ophthalmology. 1997;104:460-465.
2. Grover S, Fishman GA, Brown J Jr. Patterns of visual field progression in patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Ophthalmology. 1998;105:1069-1075.
3. Ross DF, Fishman GA, Gilbert LD, Anderson RJ. Variability of visual field measurements in normal subjects and patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Arch Ophthalmol. 1984;102:1004-1010.
4. Holopigian K, Greenstein V, Seiple W, Carr RE. Rates of change differ among measures of visual function in patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Ophthalmology. 1996;103:398-405.
5. Berson EL, Sandberg MA, Rosner B, et al. Natural course of retinitis pigmentosa over a three-year interval. Am J Ophthalmol. 1985;99:240-251.
6. Massof RW, Dagnelie G, Benzschawel T, et al. First order dynamics of visual field loss in retinitis pigmentosa. Clin Vision Sci. 1990;5:1-26.
7. Artes PH, Iwase A, Ohno Y, Kitazawa Y, Chauhan BC. Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from full threshold, SITA standard, and SITA fast strategies. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:2654-2659.
8. Wyatt HJ, Dul MW, Swanson WH. Variability of visual field measurements is correlated with the gradient of visual sensitivity. Vision Res. 2007;47:925-936.
9. Seiple W, Clemens CJ, Greenstein VC, et al. Test-retest reliability of the multifocal electroretinogram and Humphrey visual fields in patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Doc Ophthalmol. 2004;109:255-272.
10. Swanson WH, Felius J, Birch DG. Effect of stimulus size on static visual fields in patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:1950-1954.
11. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8:135-160.
12. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307-310.
13. Henson DB, Evans J, Chauhan BC, Lane C. Influence of fixation accuracy on threshold variability in patients with open angle glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Visual Sci. 1996;37:444-450.
14. Roman AJ, Schwartz SB, Aleman TS, et al. Quantifying rod photoreceptor-mediated vision in retinal degenerations: dark-adapted thresholds as outcome measures. Exp Eye Res. 2005;80:259-272.
15. Birch DG, Anderson JL, Fish GE. Yearly rates of rod and cone functional loss in retinitis pigmentosa and cone-rod dystrophy. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:258-268.