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

Chris A. Johnson, PhD; Jacqueline M. Nelson-Quigg
Sacramento, Calif

Arch Ophthalmol. 1990;108(6):778.

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

In Reply.

—Our investigation¹ of reliability indexes for normal observers and patients during automated perimetry found results that were more favorable than those previously reported by Katz and Sommer.² We proposed three possibilities for the differences between the two studies: differences in the composition of the subject populations, differences in the amount of prior experience with automated perimetry, and differences in the degree of technician involvement with the patient. Katz and Sommer feel that the composition of the subject populations is the main factor responsible for the different findings between the two studies. We have no objection to this explanation, although the population from which we drew our normal subjects and patients was far from "elite."

Of greater importance to practitioners is how this information pertains to their day-to-day testing of patients with automated perimetry. A third investigation of the reliability of automated perimetry in patient populations has . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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