Table of Contents
ISRN Ophthalmology
Volume 2013 (2013), Article ID 753202, 8 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/753202
Research Article

Comparison of Octopus Semi-Automated Kinetic Perimetry and Humphrey Peripheral Static Perimetry in Neuro-Ophthalmic Cases

1Department of Health Services Research, University of Liverpool, Brownlow Hill, Liverpool L69 3GB, UK
2Department of Ophthalmology, Walton Centre for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Liverpool L9 7LJ, UK
3Department of Ophthalmology, Aintree Hospital University Trust, Liverpool L9 7AL, UK

Received 12 May 2013; Accepted 18 June 2013

Academic Editors: A. M. Avunduk, H. Quiroz-Mercado, Á. Szél, and I. J. Wang

Copyright © 2013 Fiona J. Rowe et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. J. L. Keltner, C. A. Johnson, J. O. Spurr, and R. W. Beck, “Comparison of central and peripheral visual field properties in the optic neuritis treatment trial,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 128, no. 5, pp. 543–553, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. K. Nowomiejska, R. Vonthein, J. Paetzold, Z. Zagorski, R. Kardon, and U. Schiefer, “Comparison between semiautomated kinetic perimetry and conventional goldmann manual kinetic perimetry in advanced visual field loss,” Ophthalmology, vol. 112, no. 8, pp. 1343–1354, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. K. Nowomiejska, R. Rejdak, Z. Zagorski, and T. Zarnowski, “Comparison of static automated perimetry and semi-automated kinetic perimetry in patients with bilateral visible optic nerve head drusen,” Acta Ophthalmologica, vol. 87, no. 7, pp. 801–805, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. K. Nowomiejska, R. Vonthein, J. Paetzold, Z. Zagorski, R. Kardon, and U. Schiefer, “Reaction time during semi-automated kinetic perimetry (SKP) in patients with advanced visual field loss,” Acta Ophthalmologica, vol. 88, no. 1, pp. 65–69, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. G. Szatmáry, V. Biousse, and N. J. Newman, “Can Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm fast perimetry be used as an alternative to Goldmann perimetry in neuro-ophthalmic practice?” Archives of Ophthalmology, vol. 120, no. 9, pp. 1162–1173, 2002. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. A. M. F. Wong and J. A. Sharpe, “A comparison of tangent screen, goldmann, and humphrey perimetry in the detection and localization of occipital lesions,” Ophthalmology, vol. 107, no. 3, pp. 527–544, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. F. J. Rowe and N. J. Sarkies, “Assessment of visual function in idiopathic intracranial hypertension: a prospective study,” Eye, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 111–118, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. M. Wall and D. George, “Idiopathic intracranial hypertension. A prospective study of 50 patients,” Brain, vol. 114, no. 1, pp. 155–180, 1991. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. A. J. W. King, A. Taguri, A. C. Wadood, and A. Azuara-Blanco, “Comparison of two fast strategies, SITA fast and TOP, for the assessment of visual fields in glaucoma patients,” Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, vol. 240, no. 6, pp. 481–487, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. S. L. Pineles, N. J. Volpe, E. Miller-Ellis et al., “Automated combined kinetic and static perimetry: an alternative to standard perimetry in patients with neuro-ophthalmic disease and glaucoma,” Archives of Ophthalmology, vol. 124, no. 3, pp. 363–369, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. J. L. Keltner, C. A. Johnson, K. E. Cello et al., “Classification of visual field abnormalities in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study,” Archives of Ophthalmology, vol. 121, no. 5, pp. 643–650, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. B. K. Nayak and A. Hazra, “How to choose the right statistical test,” Indian Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 85–86, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. J. Nevalainen, J. Paetzold, E. Krapp, R. Vonthein, C. A. Johnson, and U. Schiefer, “The use of semi-automated kinetic perimetry (SKP) to monitor advanced glaucomatous visual field loss,” Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, vol. 246, no. 9, pp. 1331–1339, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. C. Hudson and J. M. Wild, “Assessment of physiologic statokinetic dissociation by automated perimetry,” Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, vol. 33, no. 11, pp. 3162–3168, 1992. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. E. Gandolfo, “Stato-kinetic dissociation in subjects with normal and abnormal visual fields,” European Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 408–414, 1996. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus