[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
March 1986

Duration of Automated Suprathreshold vs Quantitative Threshold Field ExaminationImpact of Age and Ocular Status

Author Affiliations

From the Dana Center for Preventive Ophthalmology of the Wilmer Institute, and the School of Public Health, The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore.

Arch Ophthalmol. 1986;104(3):398-401. doi:10.1001/archopht.1986.01050150098036
Abstract

• We investigated the impact of age and ocular status on the duration of automated threshold and suprathreshold testing of the visual field in a study of 57 eyes with glaucomatous field loss, 58 eyes with ocular hypertension, and 190 eyes of normal controls. It was faster to run a three-zone threshold-related suprathreshold 120-point full-field screening test on younger subjects and normal controls than on older subjects or subjects with early glaucomatous field loss. In contrast, the time required for full quantitative thresholding of 76 points within the central 30° was unaffected by either age or ocular status. Normal individuals required 40% more time to complete the quantitative threshold test than the "full-field" screening test.

References
1.
Fankhauser F, Koch P, Roulier A:  On automation of perimetry . Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1972;184:126-150.Article
2.
Heijl A:  Automated perimetry in glaucoma visual field screening: A clinical study . Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1976;200:21-37.Article
3.
Heijl A, Krakau CET:  An automatic static perimeter, design and pilot study . Acta Ophthalmol 1975;53:293-310.Article
4.
Johnson CA, Keltner JL:  Automated suprathreshold static perimetry . Am J Ophthalmol 1980;89:731-741.
5.
Heijl A, Krakau CET:  An automatic perimeter for glaucoma visual field screening and control: Construction and clinical cases . Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1976;197:13-23.Article
6.
Keltner JL, Johnson CA:  Effectiveness of automated perimetry in following glaucomatous visual field progression . Ophthalmology 1982; 89:247-254.Article
7.
Field Analyzer Owners Manual , model 610. San Leandro, Calif, Humphrey Instruments Company, 1983.
8.
Sommer A, Duggan C, Auer C, et al: Analytic approaches to the interpretation of automated threshold perimetric data for the diagnosis of early glaucoma. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc, in press.
9.
Duggan C, Sommer A, Auer C, et al:  Automated differential threshold perimetry for detecting glaucomatous visual field loss . Am J Ophthalmol 1985;100:420-423.
10.
Sommer A, Quigley HA, Robin AL, et al:  Evaluation of nerve fiber layer assessment . Arch Ophthalmol 1984;102:1766-1771.Article
11.
US Bureau of the Census: United States Census of Population, 1980: General Population Characteristics, United States Summary . Washington, DC, US Dept of Commerce, 1983.
12.
Wilensky JT, Joondeph BC:  Variation in visual field measurements with an automated perimeter . Am J Ophthalmol 1984;97:323-331.
13.
Heijl A:  Time changes of contrast thresholds during automatic perimetry . Acta Ophthalmol 1977;55:696-708.
14.
Greve EL, Verdiun WM:  Mass visual field investigation in 1,834 persons with supposedly normal eyes . Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1972;183:286-293.Article
15.
Bengtsson B, Krakau CET:  Automatic perimetry in a population survey . Acta Ophthalmol 1979;57:929-937.Article
16.
Keltner JL, Johnson CA:  Mass visual field screening in a driving population . Ophthalmology 1980;87:785-790.Article
17.
National Center for Health Statistics: National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: Background and Methodology . Rockville, Md, National Center for Health Statistics of the US Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1974.
18.
Heijl A, Drance SM:  A clinical comparison of three computerized automatic perimeters in the detection of glaucoma defect . Arch Ophthalmol 1981;99:832-836.Article
19.
Heijl A, Drance SM, Douglas GR:  Automated perimetry (COMPETER) . Arch Ophthalmol 1980;98:1560-1563.Article
20.
Keltner JL, Johnson CA, Lewis RA:  Quantitative office perimetry . Ophthalmology 1985; 92:862-872.Article
×