A comparison of Goldmann and Humphrey automated perimetry in patients with glaucoma.
Open Access
- 1 July 1987
- journal article
- research article
- Published by BMJ in British Journal of Ophthalmology
- Vol. 71 (7) , 489-493
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.71.7.489
Abstract
Humphrey automated threshold perimetry (Program 30-2) was performed on 42 eyes of 25 patients with glaucoma to determine both the sensitivity and specificity of automated perimetry in detecting glaucomatous visual field defects. Automated perimetry sensitivity was 90.38%, while automated perimetry specificity was 91%. Fifty-two patients and a technician took part in a survey to determine their preference for either test. Patients generally preferred having Goldmann perimetry. The technician favoured Humphrey automated perimetry. Program 30-2 on the automated perimeter took 25% longer to perform than Goldmann perimetry.This publication has 4 references indexed in Scilit:
- Computerised perimetry.1985
- A Clinical Comparison of Visual Field Testing With a New Automated Perimeter, the Humphrey Field Analyzer, and the Goldmann PerimeterOphthalmology, 1985
- A Clinical Comparison of Three Computerized Automatic Perimeters in the Detection of Glaucoma DefectsArchives of Ophthalmology (1950), 1981
- A modification of the Armaly visual field screening technique for glaucoma.1971