Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
April 1929


Arch Surg. 1929;18(4):1036-1048. doi:10.1001/archsurg.1929.01140130124005

Among the more important reasons for the retarded development of quantitative perimetry since the first principles were laid before the Tenth International Medical Congress by Bjerrum,1 more than a third of a century ago, is the examinational time element. Twenty years slipped by before the work of Roenne2 brought the subject really to the front, and still another ten years before enough material was assembled for such a book as Peters has presented on the subject, or as appears in Traquair's splendid "Introduction to Clinical Perimetry."3

It was not so clear to me that the time element was the real essence of the backwardness of the subject until about three or four years ago when I asked the chiefs of some of the larger clinics, as for instance, the Mayo Clinic, why the old method of perimetry was still used when the new quantitative method was known

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