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  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

How Do We Interpret the Results?

Jacob T. Wilensky, MD

Arch Ophthalmol. 1989;107(2):185-186.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

The advent of automated perimetry has had a major impact on the care of patients with glaucoma. These instruments have made perimetry readily available and accessible to the majority of such patients. As recently as the mid-1970s it was uncommon for patients who were referred to glaucoma specialists to present with good quantitative visual fields from the referring ophthalmologist's office; today it is the rule. No longer does the ophthalmologist have to personally plot the visual field because of the unavailability of trained, competent perimetrists. Now an office nurse, ophthalmic assistant, or occasionally even a secretary can be trained relatively quickly to operate the automated instruments.

See also pp 199 and 204.

Patient acceptance of the instruments has been adequate although not enthusiastic. In several comparison studies, experienced patients preferred the manual techniques of assessing visual fields vs the new automated ones.^1,2 Because the majority of patients are new . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Chicago

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