Abstract
The Friedmann Visual Field Analyser Mark II is evaluated with a group of 301 normal eyes, 155 of which had an induced visual field defect. Measures of sensitivity and specificity are calculated from these data by criteria similar to those used by other researchers. The inadequacies of using pass/fail criteria in the clinical situation are discussed, and a solution is proposed in which each field response is scored and the score compared with those from normal and defective populations. An example is given of how this form of analysis could be incorporated into the clinical situation.
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Batko K. A., Anctil J. L., Anderson D. R. Dethecting glaucomatous damage with the Friedmann analyzer compared with te Goldmann perimeter and evaluation of stereoscopic photographs of the optic disk. Am J Ophthalmol. 1983 Apr;95(4):435–447. doi: 10.1016/0002-9394(83)90262-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Drance S. M. The glaucomatous visual field. Invest Ophthalmol. 1972 Feb;11(2):85–96. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Greve E. L. Performance of computer assisted perimeters. Doc Ophthalmol. 1982 Dec 1;53(4):343–380. doi: 10.1007/BF00216795. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Johnson C. A., Keltner J. L. Comparative evaluation of the Autofield-I, CFA-120, and Fieldmaster Model 101-PR automated perimeters. Ophthalmology. 1980 Aug;87(8):777–784. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(80)35162-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]