[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.211.148.181. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
May 1980

Automated Visual Field Plotters vs Tangent Screen Kinetic Perimetry-Reply

Author Affiliations

Davis, Calif

Arch Ophthalmol. 1980;98(5):931-932. doi:10.1001/archopht.1980.01020030924028
Abstract

In Reply  .—The initial study (105 eyes) we performed with the Fieldmaster Model 101-PR automated perimeter1 has now been validated in subsequent follow-up investigations of more than 1,000 eyes.2-4 Evaluations performed by other investigators have also replicated our findings.5.6 To date, our total clinical experience with automated suprathreshold static perimetry includes several automated devices7 and extends to more than 4,000 eyes over a three-year period. We are therefore confident that these procedures can be highly effective for detecting visual field defects, provided the proper techniques are employed.It is unfortunate that Gerber and colleagues have experienced difficulties with automated suprathreshold static perimetry as performed by the Fieldmaster Model 101-PR. Most of the information we have received from practicing ophthalmologists has been very favorable. In the small number of instances in which problems have been reported, it has usually been possible to attribute the source of the

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×