[Reproducibility of central visual field testing using kinetic or computerized static perimetry (author's transl)]

Area of Science:

• Ophthalmology
• Medical Technology
• Visual Science

Context:

• Evaluating the reliability of visual field testing methods is crucial for accurate diagnosis and monitoring of eye conditions.
• Traditional Goldmann kinetic perimetry relies on subjective examiner input, potentially introducing variability.
• Advancements in technology have led to the development of static computerized perimeters for visual field assessment.

Purpose:

• To compare the reproducibility of duplicated visual field examinations using the Goldmann kinetic perimeter and a static computerized perimeter (Krakau/Heijl).
• To quantitatively assess the agreement between initial and repeat tests for both perimetry methods.
• To identify factors contributing to differences in reproducibility between the two techniques.

Summary:

• The study found that static computerized perimetry achieved 88% agreement between duplicated examinations, compared to 72% for Goldmann kinetic perimetry.
• This enhanced reproducibility with computerized perimetry is attributed to its standardized, objective approach, minimizing observer subjectivity.
• The computerized perimeter was user-friendly, requiring no specialized technician, and was accessible to all patients who could undergo kinetic testing.

Impact:

• Static computerized perimetry offers superior reproducibility for central visual field testing, potentially leading to more consistent patient monitoring.
• The objective nature of computerized perimetry reduces examiner-dependent variability, improving the reliability of visual field data.
• The ease of use and accessibility of computerized perimeters can streamline clinical workflows and expand diagnostic capabilities in ophthalmology.