Diagnostic accuracy of confrontation visual field tests

Neurology

Volumn 74, Issue 15, 2010, Pages 1184-1190

  Kerr, N M ^a   Chew, S S L ^a   Eady, E K ^a   Gamble, G D ^a   Danesh Meyer, H V ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCREENING TEST; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL FIELD DEFECT;

EID: 77950949935     PISSN: 00283878     EISSN: 1526632X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181d90017     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Moore FG, Chalk C. The essential neurologic examination: what should medical students be taught? Neurology 2009;72:2020-2023.
2. Elliott DB, North I, Flanagan J. Confrontation visual field tests. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1997;17 suppl 2:S17-S24.
3. Pandit RJ, Gales K, Griffiths PG. Effectiveness of testing visual fields by confrontation. Lancet 2001;358:1339-1340.
4. Smidt N, Rutjes AW, van der Windt DA, et al. The quality of diagnostic accuracy studies since the STARD statement: has it improved? Neurology 2006;67:792-797.
5. Frisen L. A versatile color confrontation test for the central visual field: a comparison with quantitative perimetry. Arch Ophthalmol 1973;89:3-9.
6. Johnson LN, Baloh FG. The accuracy of confrontation visual field test in comparison with automated perimetry. J Natl Med Assoc 1991;83:895-898.
7. Mindel JS, Safir A, Schare PW. Visual field testing with red targets. Arch Ophthalmol 1983;101:927-929.
8. Trobe J, Acosta P, Krischer J, Trick G. Confrontation visual field techniques in the detection of anterior visual pathway lesions. Ann Neurol 1981;10:28-34.
9. Trobe JD, Acosta PC, Krischer JP. A screening method for chiasmal visual-field defects. Arch Ophthalmol 1981;99: 264-271.
10. Wellings PC. Detection and recognition of visual field defects resulting from lesions involving the visual pathways. Aust NZ J Ophthalmol 1989;17:331-335.
11. Heijl A. Automatic perimetry in glaucoma visual field screening: a clinical study. Albrecht Von Graefes Arch Klin Exp Ophthalmol 1976;200:21-37.
12. Katz J, Tielsch JM, Quigley HA, Sommer A. Automated perimetry detects visual field loss before manual Gold-mann perimetry. Ophthalmology 1995;102:21-26.
13. Lynn JR. Examination of the visual field in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol 1969;8:76-84.
14. Heijl A, Patella VM. Essential Perimetry, 3rd ed. Carl Zeiss Meditec; 2002.
15. Shahinfar S, Johnson LN, Madsen RW. Confrontation visual field loss as a function of decibel sensitivity loss on automated static perimetry: implications on the accuracy of confrontation visual field testing. Ophthalmology 1995;102:872-877.
16. Keltner JL, Johnson CA, Cello KE, et al. Classification of visual field abnormalities in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Arch Ophthalmol 2003;121:643-650.
17. Neuhaus JM, Kalbfleisch JD, Hauck WW. A comparison of cluster-specific and population-averaged approaches for analyzing correlated binary data. Int Stat Rev 1991;59:25-35.
18. Miller NR, Newman NJ, Biousse V, Hoyt WF, Kerrison JB. Walsh & Hoyt's Clinical Neuro-Ophthalmology, 6th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004.