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   What's this?

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).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    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