Reliability of simultaneous visual field testing

Ophthalmology

Volumn 119, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 304-307

  Kramer, Benjamin C ^a   Musch, David C ^a,b   Niziol, Leslie M ^a   Weizer, Jennifer S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COST CONTROL; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PARAMEDICAL PERSONNEL; PARAMETERS; PERFORMANCE; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PRODUCTIVITY; RELIABILITY; SCREENING TEST; STUDENT T TEST; VISUAL FIELD;

AGED; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; MALE; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; VISION DISORDERS; VISUAL FIELD TESTS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 84856557793     PISSN: 01616420     EISSN: 15494713     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.08.021     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. M. Zulauf, J. Flammer, C. Signer The influence of alcohol on the outcome of automated static perimetry Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 224 1986 525 528
2. V.M. Fiorelli, N. Kasahara, R. Cohen Improved automated perimetry performance following exposure to Mozart Br J Ophthalmol 90 2006 543 545
3. H. Sherafat, P.G. Spry, A. Waldock Effect of a patient training video on visual field test reliability Br J Ophthalmol 87 2003 153 156 (Pubitemid 36152739)
4. Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study Manual of Operations 1997 7 22
5. L.N. Johnson, A. Aminlari, J.W. Sassani Effect of intermittent versus continuous patient monitoring on reliability indices during automated perimetry Ophthalmology 100 1993 76 84 (Pubitemid 23041134)
6. R.E. Van Coevorden, R.P. Mills, Y.Y. Chen, H.S. Barnebey Continuous visual field test supervision may not always be necessary Ophthalmology 106 1999 178 181
7. R.R. Allingham, K.F. Damji, S. Freedman Assessment of Visual Fields J.W. Pine Jr Shields Textbook of Glaucoma 6th ed. 2011 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Philadelphia, PA 103
8. B. Bengtsson, A. Heijl False-negative responses in glaucoma perimetry: indicators of patient performance or test reliability? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41 2000 2201 2204 (Pubitemid 30450993)
9. C.M. Birt, D.H. Shin, V. Samudrala Analysis of reliability indices from Humphrey visual field tests in an urban glaucoma population Ophthalmology 104 1997 1126 1130 (Pubitemid 27423855)
10. A. Heijl, G. Lindgren, J. Olsson The effect of perimetric experience in normal subjects Arch Ophthalmol 107 1989 81 86 (Pubitemid 19037329)
11. E.B. Werner, A. Adelson, T. Krupin Effect of patient experience on the results of automated perimetry in clinically stable glaucoma patients Ophthalmology 95 1988 764 767
12. J.M. Wild, M. Dengler-Harles, A.E. Searle The influence of the learning effect on automated perimetry in patients with suspected glaucoma Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 67 1989 537 545 (Pubitemid 19283112)