1991
DOI: 10.1001/archopht.1991.01080120068028
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of Analytic Algorithms for Detecting Glaucomatous Visual Field Loss

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
86
0
3

Year Published

1999
1999
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 175 publications
(91 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
2
86
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…By comparing number of eyes with clusters of significantly depressed test point locations, defined as three or more adjacent points, with at least one point depressed at the p<2% level, requiring that cluster points be located in the same upper or lower hemifield. This criterion is similar to the one suggested by Katz and co-workers 1991 15 .…”
Section: By Paired Comparisons Of Number Of Significantly Depressed Psupporting
confidence: 87%
“…By comparing number of eyes with clusters of significantly depressed test point locations, defined as three or more adjacent points, with at least one point depressed at the p<2% level, requiring that cluster points be located in the same upper or lower hemifield. This criterion is similar to the one suggested by Katz and co-workers 1991 15 .…”
Section: By Paired Comparisons Of Number Of Significantly Depressed Psupporting
confidence: 87%
“…The VF was considered to be abnormal if it was classified as outside normal limits by the GHT or if three or more contiguous test locations in the pattern deviation plot were depressed significantly at the Po5% level with at least one at the Po1% level on the same side of the horizontal meridian. 22 VF abnormalities were classified as mild (mean deviation (MD) 4 À 6 decibels (dB)), moderate ( À 12 dB o MD r À 6 dB), or severe (MD r À 12 dB). If both eyes were normal or had glaucoma, one eye was selected randomly by the investigator, who was masked to the OCT results at the time the selection was made with a random number generator statistical table.…”
Section: Participants and Examinationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Three adjacent non-edge points Po0.05 in the pattern deviation probability plot of which at least one point Po0.01 and all points on the same side of the horizontal meridian (LTG-P criterion). 6 For conversion, two consecutive, reliable 5 tests had to be classified as abnormal 7,8 (according to any of the criteria as listed above), and any reliable test performed after these two tests had to be abnormal as well. Defects had to be in the same hemifield and at least partially overlapping.…”
Section: Perimetrymentioning
confidence: 99%