Automatic perimetry in glaucoma visual field screening. A clinical study

Abstract

Automatic computerized perimetry was compared to careful manual selective perimetry (a variant of that proposed by Armaly) in 181 eyes of 100 patients from a glaucoma open-care unit. The results of the two methods were very similar. Thus all defects found were identified by the automatic perimeter, and one pathologic field was missed by the manual selective perimetry. The automatic examination gave 16% false positive results and the manual 11% when optimally performed. The false positives could be greatly reduced (to 4.4% and 3.3% respectively) by rescreening. In a comparison with "routine" perimetry, the automatic screening is shown to be superior.