Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Quantitative office perimetry.

J L Keltner, C A Johnson, R A Lewis

    Ophthalmology
    |July 1, 1985
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    No single automated perimeter excelled across all evaluations. Patient and technician preferences varied, with projection perimeters offering easier result comparison but inconsistent data clarity for visual field testing.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    Cardiovascular disease and differences between the sexes.

    American family physician·2001
    Same author

    dSIR2 and dHDAC6: two novel, inhibitor-resistant deacetylases in Drosophila melanogaster.

    Experimental cell research·2001
    Same author

    Frequency doubling perimetry using a liquid crystal display.

    American journal of ophthalmology·2001
    Same author

    Operative management of neuromatous knee pain: patient selection and outcome.

    Annals of plastic surgery·2001
    Same author

    Equal access to health care.

    Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien·2001
    Same author

    Deacetylase activity associates with topoisomerase II and is necessary for etoposide-induced apoptosis.

    The Journal of biological chemistry·2001

    Area of Science:

    • Ophthalmology
    • Visual Science
    • Medical Device Technology

    Background:

    • Automated static perimetry is crucial for diagnosing and monitoring visual field defects.
    • Comparing the performance of different commercially available automated perimeters is essential for clinical practice.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To conduct a preliminary comparison of six automated threshold static perimeters.
    • To evaluate patient and technician acceptance, operational ease, and practitioner-oriented factors including reliability and comparability.

    Main Methods:

    • Six perimeters were tested: three projection (Humphrey Field Analyzer, Squid, Octopus 500) and three LED (Dicon 2000, Fieldmaster 50, Digilab 350).
    • Eighteen participants (normal observers, glaucoma patients, neuro-ophthalmologic/retinal patients) underwent testing.

    Related Experiment Videos

  • Evaluated aspects included subjective impressions, technician ease of use, test-retest reliability, result comparability, and testing time.

    • Main Results:

    • No single device demonstrated overall superiority across all evaluated aspects.
    • Patients favored the Octopus 500, Squid, and Fieldmaster 50; technicians preferred the Humphrey Field Analyzer and Squid.
    • Projection perimeters facilitated result cross-comparison, though data interpretation clarity varied. Test-retest reliability and testing duration differed among devices.

    Conclusions:

    • The choice of automated perimeter involves trade-offs between patient comfort, operational efficiency, and data quality.
    • Further research is needed to establish definitive performance standards for visual field testing devices.