The qualitative comparative analysis of the visual field using computer assisted, semi-automated and manual instrumentation: III. Clinical analysis
- PMID: 6549288
- DOI: 10.1007/BF00679798
The qualitative comparative analysis of the visual field using computer assisted, semi-automated and manual instrumentation: III. Clinical analysis
Abstract
A comparative evaluation of the Octopus automated perimeter (Programmes 21 and 31), the Goldmann Bowl perimeter, the Bjerrum Screen and the Friedmann VFAs Mk I and Mk II was carried out on a heterogeneous sample of 75 patients. Field loss was categorized using a modification of the classifications proposed by Greve (1982). The results were analysed using the Level 4 analysis developed by Flanagan, Wild, Barnes, Gilmartin, Good and Crews (1984a). The performance of the various test logics was found to differ between the categories of field defect.
References
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Medical