Visual field examination using a video projector: comparison with Humphrey perimeter

被引:0
|
作者
Brouzas, Dimitrios [1 ]
Tsapakis, Stylianos [1 ]
Nitoda, Eirini [1 ]
Moschos, Marilita M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Athens, Dept Ophthalmol 1, Med Sch, 10G Papandreou St, Athens 16231, Greece
来源
CLINICAL OPHTHALMOLOGY | 2014年 / 8卷
关键词
visual fields; video projector; computerized perimetry; automated perimetry; visual field software;
D O I
10.2147/OPTH.S54524
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
Purpose: To present a method of visual field examination using a video projector. Also, we compare our results with those of a Humphrey perimeter, which is accepted as standard in automated perimetry. Materials and methods: Software implementing a full-threshold 4-2-step staircase algorithm for the central 30-2 of the visual field (76 points) has been developed and tested in nine eyes of seven patients using an Epson TW 700 video projector. The results were compared to those obtained from the same patients using the Humphrey perimeter. Results: High correlation between the video projector visual fields and those of the Humphrey perimeter was found. The point-to-point correlation coefficient ranged from 0.75 to 0.90, with P<0.0001 for each eye. Conclusion: Visual field examination results using a video projector have high correlation with those of a Humphrey perimeter. The method is possibly suitable for clinical use.
引用
收藏
页码:523 / 528
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A CLINICAL COMPARISON OF VISUAL-FIELD TESTING WITH A NEW AUTOMATED PERIMETER, THE HUMPHREY FIELD ANALYZER, AND THE GOLDMANN PERIMETER
    BECK, RW
    BERGSTROM, TJ
    LICHTER, PR
    OPHTHALMOLOGY, 1985, 92 (01) : 77 - 82
  • [2] Comparison of visual field sensitivities between the Medmont automated perimeter and the Humphrey field analyser
    Landers, John
    Sharma, Alok
    Goldberg, Ivan
    Graham, Stuart L.
    CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2010, 38 (03): : 273 - 276
  • [3] A comparison of visual field testing with a new automated perimeter, the Compass visual field analyser, and the Humphrey visual field analyser
    Fenolland, J. R.
    Bonnel, S.
    Rosenberg, R.
    Sendon, D.
    Ghazal, W.
    Giraud, J. M.
    Renard, J. P.
    ACTA OPHTHALMOLOGICA, 2016, 94
  • [4] Comparison of Visual Field Measurement with Heidelberg Edge Perimeter and Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer in Patients with Ocular Hypertension
    Kaczorowski, Kamil
    Mulak, Malgorzata
    Szumny, Dorota
    Baranowska, Marta
    Jakubaszko-Jablonska, Joanna
    Misiuk-Hojlo, Marta
    ADVANCES IN CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE, 2016, 25 (05): : 937 - 944
  • [5] Home-based visual field test for glaucoma screening comparison with Humphrey perimeter
    Tsapakis, Stylianos
    Papaconstantinou, Dimitrios
    Diagourtas, Andreas
    Kandarakis, Stylianos
    Droutsas, Konstantinos
    Andreanos, Konstantinos
    Brouzas, Dimitrios
    CLINICAL OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2018, 12 : 2597 - 2606
  • [6] Comparison of the TEMPO binocular perimeter and Humphrey field analyzer
    Takashi Nishida
    Robert N. Weinreb
    Juan Arias
    Cristiana Vasile
    Sasan Moghimi
    Scientific Reports, 13
  • [7] Comparison of a portable perimeter with the Humphrey Field Analyzer in Telemedicine
    Antwi-Adjei, Ellen
    Swain, Thomas
    Racette, Lyne
    Rhodes, Lindsay
    INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2023, 64 (08)
  • [8] Comparison of the TEMPO binocular perimeter and Humphrey field analyzer
    Nishida, Takashi
    Weinreb, Robert N.
    Arias, Juan
    Vasile, Cristiana
    Moghimi, Sasan
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2023, 13 (01)
  • [9] Comparison of the Humphrey Field Analyser and Humphrey Matrix Perimeter for the Evaluation of Glaucoma Patients
    Chen, Yi-Hao
    Wu, Jian-Nan
    Chen, Jiann-Torng
    Lu, Da-Wen
    OPHTHALMOLOGICA, 2008, 222 (06) : 400 - 407
  • [10] Longitudinal comparison of visual field outcomes obtained by a tablet perimeter and those returned by Humphrey Field Analyzer
    Kong, Yu Xiang George
    He, Mingguang
    Crowston, Jonathan
    Martin, Keith R.
    Vingrys, Algis J.
    INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2017, 58 (08)