This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Jacqueline M. Nelson-Quigg; J. Daniel Twelker; Chris A. Johnson, PhD

Arch Ophthalmol. 1989;107(11):1612-1615.

Abstract
• Automated perimetry was performed on both eyes of 54 normal subjects, 36 patients with ocular hypertension and normal visual fields, and 20 patients with early glaucomatous visual field loss to evaluate false-positive errors, false-negative errors, fixation losses, consistency of double determinations, and testing time. For all subject groups and response measures, large interindividual variation was found. No meaningful age-related changes were obtained for false-negative errors, false-positive errors, fixation losses, or consistency of double determinations. Contrary to earlier reports, we found a low number of normal subjects and patients exceeding the 33% false-positive and false-negative limits established for the Humphrey Field Analyzer. A large number of normal subjects and patients, however, exceeded the 20% limits for fixation losses.

Author Affiliations
From the Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, Davis (Ms Nelson-Quigg, Mr Twelker, and Dr Johnson), and the School of Optometry, University of California, Berkeley (Mr Twelker).

Footnotes
Accepted for publication July 14, 1989.

Reprint requests to Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA 95616 (Dr Johnson).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Effect of a patient training video on visual field test reliability
Sherafat et al.
Br J Ophthalmol 2003;87:153-156.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Comparison of Analytic Algorithms for Detecting Glaucomatous Visual Field Loss
Katz et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 1991;109:1684-1689.
ABSTRACT  

Reliability of Automated Perimetric Tests-Reply
Johnson and Nelson-Quigg
Arch Ophthalmol 1990;108:778-778.
ABSTRACT  

Reliability of Automated Perimetric Tests
Katz and Sommer
Arch Ophthalmol 1990;108:777-778.
ABSTRACT