A Comparison of Peritest Automated Perimetry and Goldmann Perimetry

The use of semi-automated kinetic perimetry (SKP) to monitor advanced glaucomatous visual field loss

“…Beck et al compared the difference between manual kinetic perimetry and automated static grid perimetry finding that VF defects are not only found earlier but are also usually more advanced when examined with automated static perimetry [2]. These findings share the general hypothesis concerning the differences between automated and manual perimeters [4,5,8]. These studies are mostly emphasizing early glaucomatous VF loss.…”

The use of semi-automated kinetic perimetry (SKP) to monitor advanced glaucomatous visual field loss

“…Beck et al compared the difference between manual kinetic perimetry and automated static grid perimetry finding that VF defects are not only found earlier but are also usually more advanced when examined with automated static perimetry [2]. These findings share the general hypothesis concerning the differences between automated and manual perimeters [4,5,8]. These studies are mostly emphasizing early glaucomatous VF loss.…”

The visual field following acute primary angle closure

“…The incidence of visual field loss found ranged from 39.4% to 76% (McNaught et al 1974; Horie et al 1975; Douglas et al 1975) and the field defects detected included peripheral defects especially constriction of the upper field (McNaught et al 1974), advanced visual field defects (Horie et al 1975) and nerve fiber bundle defects (Douglas et al 1975). Manual kinetic perimetry, however, may not be as sensitive in detecting central visual field defects as automated static perimetry (Hotchkiss et al 1985; Duggan et al 1985; Enger & Sommer 1987; Katz et al 1991, 1995). Automated static perimetry is also more standardized, inter‐technician variability is lower and field results are more uniformly interpretable than with manual perimetry (Katz et al 1995).…”

Importância da perimetria manual cinética na avaliação de pacientes com glaucoma avançado

“…Na literatura não há um consenso quanto à superioridade de um perímetro em relação ao outro e cada um deles apresenta vantagens e desvantagens distintas, influenciadas pelo estágio da doença e outras variáveis relacionadas à realização do exame (11,(15)(16)(17) . É importante ressaltar que o objetivo do trabalho não é comparar os resultados campimétricos obtidos com os dois perí-metros, mas apenas demonstrar a importância da perimetria manual e cinética como uma alternativa aos exames computadorizados e estáticos em pacientes com dano glaucomatoso avançado.…”

The use of semi-automated kinetic perimetry (SKP) to monitor advanced glaucomatous visual field loss

“…Beck et al compared the difference between manual kinetic perimetry and automated static grid perimetry finding that VF defects are not only found earlier but are also usually more advanced when examined with automated static perimetry [2]. These findings share the general hypothesis concerning the differences between automated and manual perimeters [4,5,8]. These studies are mostly emphasizing early glaucomatous VF loss.…”

The visual field following acute primary angle closure

“…The incidence of visual field loss found ranged from 39.4% to 76% (McNaught et al 1974; Horie et al 1975; Douglas et al 1975) and the field defects detected included peripheral defects especially constriction of the upper field (McNaught et al 1974), advanced visual field defects (Horie et al 1975) and nerve fiber bundle defects (Douglas et al 1975). Manual kinetic perimetry, however, may not be as sensitive in detecting central visual field defects as automated static perimetry (Hotchkiss et al 1985; Duggan et al 1985; Enger & Sommer 1987; Katz et al 1991, 1995). Automated static perimetry is also more standardized, inter‐technician variability is lower and field results are more uniformly interpretable than with manual perimetry (Katz et al 1995).…”

Importância da perimetria manual cinética na avaliação de pacientes com glaucoma avançado

“…Na literatura não há um consenso quanto à superioridade de um perímetro em relação ao outro e cada um deles apresenta vantagens e desvantagens distintas, influenciadas pelo estágio da doença e outras variáveis relacionadas à realização do exame (11,(15)(16)(17) . É importante ressaltar que o objetivo do trabalho não é comparar os resultados campimétricos obtidos com os dois perí-metros, mas apenas demonstrar a importância da perimetria manual e cinética como uma alternativa aos exames computadorizados e estáticos em pacientes com dano glaucomatoso avançado.…”

The use of semi-automated kinetic perimetry (SKP) to monitor advanced glaucomatous visual field loss

“…Beck et al compared the difference between manual kinetic perimetry and automated static grid perimetry finding that VF defects are not only found earlier but are also usually more advanced when examined with automated static perimetry [2]. These findings share the general hypothesis concerning the differences between automated and manual perimeters [4,5,8]. These studies are mostly emphasizing early glaucomatous VF loss.…”

The visual field following acute primary angle closure

“…The incidence of visual field loss found ranged from 39.4% to 76% (McNaught et al 1974; Horie et al 1975; Douglas et al 1975) and the field defects detected included peripheral defects especially constriction of the upper field (McNaught et al 1974), advanced visual field defects (Horie et al 1975) and nerve fiber bundle defects (Douglas et al 1975). Manual kinetic perimetry, however, may not be as sensitive in detecting central visual field defects as automated static perimetry (Hotchkiss et al 1985; Duggan et al 1985; Enger & Sommer 1987; Katz et al 1991, 1995). Automated static perimetry is also more standardized, inter‐technician variability is lower and field results are more uniformly interpretable than with manual perimetry (Katz et al 1995).…”

Importância da perimetria manual cinética na avaliação de pacientes com glaucoma avançado

“…Na literatura não há um consenso quanto à superioridade de um perímetro em relação ao outro e cada um deles apresenta vantagens e desvantagens distintas, influenciadas pelo estágio da doença e outras variáveis relacionadas à realização do exame (11,(15)(16)(17) . É importante ressaltar que o objetivo do trabalho não é comparar os resultados campimétricos obtidos com os dois perí-metros, mas apenas demonstrar a importância da perimetria manual e cinética como uma alternativa aos exames computadorizados e estáticos em pacientes com dano glaucomatoso avançado.…”