You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 98 No. 12, December 1980 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  CLINICAL SCIENCES
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (14)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Computerized Profile Perimetry in Glaucoma

Anders Heijl, MD; Stephen M. Drance, MD, FRCS(C)

Arch Ophthalmol. 1980;98(12):2199-2201.


Abstract

• The new profile testing mode of the COMPETER automatic perimeter was clinically tested and compared with careful manual profile perimetry on the Tübinger perimeter. Each of 110 patients with glaucomatous field defects, patients with suspected glaucoma, and normal subjects had one meridian tested. All of the 55 patients who showed an abnormal result on the manual profile also had abnormal findings on the automatic test. Two (4%) of the profiles labeled as normal on initial manual perimetry were identified by the automatic perimeter to be abnormal, and these defects were confirmed on repeated manual profile perimetry. The automatic perimetry gave five (9%) falsepositive results in the 53 normal manual profiles, thus giving a specificity of 91%. In two of these cases, the automatic profile indicated defects in areas where the manual profile appeared normal, but there was abnormality in the manual kinetic perimetry in the affected area. The automatic profiles of the COMPETER automatic perimeter are accurate, sensitive, timesaving, and clinically useful.



Author Affiliations

From the Department of Ophthalmology, University of British Columbia and Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.


Footnotes

Accepted for publication Nov 12, 1979.

Reprint requests to Department of Ophthalmology, University of British Columbia, 2550 Willow St, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V5Z 3N9 (Dr Drance).



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

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Recognizing Glaucomatous Field Loss With the Humphrey STATPAC
Enger and Sommer
Arch Ophthalmol 1987;105:1355-1357.
ABSTRACT  

A Comparison of Peritest Automated Perimetry and Goldmann Perimetry
Hotchkiss et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 1985;103:397-403.
ABSTRACT  

A Clinical Comparison of Three Computerized Automatic Perimeters in the Detection of Glaucoma Defects
Heijl and Drance
Arch Ophthalmol 1981;99:832-836.
ABSTRACT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1980 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.