Comparative evaluation of the Autofield-I, CFA-120, and Fieldmaster Model 101-PR automated perimeters

Clinical evaluations of the Autofield-I, CFA-120, and Fieldmaster Model 101-PR automated perimeters were performed in comparison with manual kinetic testing on the Goldmann perimeter. All the automated perimeters displayed similar high rates of detecting visual field defects, although their false-alarm (false-positive) rates were considerably different. The principal factors responsible for high-detection and low false-alarm rates are discussed.