1989
DOI: 10.1055/s-2008-1046375
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fehlerquellen in der automatisierten statischen Perimetrie

Abstract: Several sources of errors in interpreting computerized visual fields (learning effect, miotic pupil, sub-optimal refraction, dirty contact lenses, inadequate patient cooperation, anatomical obstacle, and choice of the wrong program) are described with the help of examples. Their identification should result in more reliable diagnoses.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
1
0
1

Year Published

1991
1991
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
0
1
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…improvement in visual performance after radiation of optic neuropathy that resulted from Graves’ disease [41]. We also tested a semi-automated pupillometry on the Octopus [42] and analysed the sources of error in automated static perimetry [43, 44] and the diagnostic role of the peripheral visual field [45]. Our main interest focussed, however, on the short- and long-term fluctuations of the visual fields [4649].…”
Section: Visual Field Testing and Ocular Blood Flowmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…improvement in visual performance after radiation of optic neuropathy that resulted from Graves’ disease [41]. We also tested a semi-automated pupillometry on the Octopus [42] and analysed the sources of error in automated static perimetry [43, 44] and the diagnostic role of the peripheral visual field [45]. Our main interest focussed, however, on the short- and long-term fluctuations of the visual fields [4649].…”
Section: Visual Field Testing and Ocular Blood Flowmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In der vorliegenden Studie wird die Gruppenzuordnung anhand des Vorhandenseins oder Fehiens von Gesichtsfelddefekten bei der computergesteuerten statischen 30°-Perimetrie vorgenommen. Auch wenn isolierte relative Skotome in einem Prufpunkt noch als normal angesehen werden konnen (25), werden in der vorliegenden Studie diese Patienten von der Zuordnung zu der Kontroligruppe ausgeschlossen. Der morphologische Aspekt der Exkavation wird unberucksichtigt gelassen.…”
Section: Vergleich Der Glaukom-und Kontroilpapillenunclassified