[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.211.179.232. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
September 1988

Reliability Indexes of Automated Perimetric Tests

Author Affiliations

From the Dana Center for Preventive Ophthalmology, Wilmer Institute, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore.

Arch Ophthalmol. 1988;106(9):1252-1254. doi:10.1001/archopht.1988.01060140412043
Abstract

• The "reliability" of a subject's automated perimetric test result is generally assessed by three measures: fixation loss and false-positive and false-negative rates. These reliability criteria were examined for 76 glaucomatous and 248 normal subjects who underwent visual field testing (C-30-2 program; Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer, Allergan Humphrey, San Leandro, Calif). Of the examination results, 45% in glaucomatous subjects and 30% in normal controls were considered unreliable with the use of the manufacturer's reliability criteria. Most test results were unreliable because they failed to meet the criterion for fixation loss. The greater rejection rate among glaucomatous subjects was entirely due to their higher rate of false-negative responses. Factors such as age, pupil diameter, and visual acuity did not explain the difference between the false-negative rates of glaucomatous patients and normal subjects.

×