[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.144.194.161. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
June 1990

Reliability of Automated Perimetric Tests

Author Affiliations

Baltimore, Md

Arch Ophthalmol. 1990;108(6):777-778. doi:10.1001/archopht.1990.01070080019007
Abstract

To the Editor.  —Nelson-Quigg et al1 have suggested that technician involvement during automated perimetric testing is crucial to the reliability of test results. We agree with this sentiment entirely. They also suggest that one reason their patients had fewer false-positive and false-negative responses than ours2 was the difference in technician involvement between the two studies. As with their study, ours is part of a careful, prospective investigation of visual loss in ocular hypertension and early glaucoma. The technician constantly monitored the patient responses. For those who had difficulty fixating or staying awake, the test was stopped and restarted after a rest period. The fact that fixation losses were quite similar in their patients and ours suggests that technician involvement is unlikely to explain why their group had fewer false-positive and false-negative responses than ours.It is possible that patients may "learn" over time with regard to reliability measures.

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