A comparison of the Synemed Glaucoma and the Humphrey 30-2 threshold perimetry tests.

L W Harwood, L A Remington
{"title":"A comparison of the Synemed Glaucoma and the Humphrey 30-2 threshold perimetry tests.","authors":"L W Harwood,&nbsp;L A Remington","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Automated perimeters (in general) are similar; however, caution may be exercised when visual field results from two different instruments are compared. The purpose of this study was to compare threshold measurements in the central field between the Synemed (Optifield 1) Glaucoma Test and the Humphrey 30-2 test in a young patient population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>One hundred twenty subjects were tested. The subjects were selected according to specific criteria considering ocular and systemic disease and refractive error. The ages ranged from 15 to 35 years, with a mean age of 25.9 years. The central 30 glaucoma test was used with the Synemed instrument, and the 30-2 test was used with the Humphrey instrument. Mean threshold values for the entire field, hemifields, quadrants, and sectors were compared between instruments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The difference in the mean value for the collective threshold values for each pattern for each instrument were calculated and compared. The difference between the instruments for the mean dB threshold value for each pattern was less than the expected short-term fluctuation and therefore are equivalent for clinical purposes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>For the patterns examined here, the Synemed Optifield 1 and Humphrey Field Analyzer provided comparable results in this population.</p>","PeriodicalId":17208,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Optometric Association","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Optometric Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Automated perimeters (in general) are similar; however, caution may be exercised when visual field results from two different instruments are compared. The purpose of this study was to compare threshold measurements in the central field between the Synemed (Optifield 1) Glaucoma Test and the Humphrey 30-2 test in a young patient population.

Methods: One hundred twenty subjects were tested. The subjects were selected according to specific criteria considering ocular and systemic disease and refractive error. The ages ranged from 15 to 35 years, with a mean age of 25.9 years. The central 30 glaucoma test was used with the Synemed instrument, and the 30-2 test was used with the Humphrey instrument. Mean threshold values for the entire field, hemifields, quadrants, and sectors were compared between instruments.

Results: The difference in the mean value for the collective threshold values for each pattern for each instrument were calculated and compared. The difference between the instruments for the mean dB threshold value for each pattern was less than the expected short-term fluctuation and therefore are equivalent for clinical purposes.

Conclusion: For the patterns examined here, the Synemed Optifield 1 and Humphrey Field Analyzer provided comparable results in this population.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
联合青光眼与汉弗莱30-2阈值视力试验的比较。
背景:自动周界(一般来说)是相似的;然而,当比较两种不同仪器的视野结果时,可能需要谨慎。本研究的目的是比较年轻患者群体中Synemed (Optifield 1)青光眼试验和Humphrey 30-2试验在中央视野的阈值测量。方法:对120名受试者进行测试。受试者是根据考虑眼部和全身疾病以及屈光不正的特定标准选择的。年龄15 ~ 35岁,平均25.9岁。Synemed仪采用中央30度青光眼试验,Humphrey仪采用30-2度青光眼试验。在仪器之间比较整个场、半场、象限和扇区的平均阈值。结果:计算和比较了每种仪器的每种模式的集体阈值的平均值的差异。每种模式的平均dB阈值的仪器之间的差异小于预期的短期波动,因此对于临床目的是等效的。结论:对于这里检查的模式,Synemed Optifield 1和Humphrey Field Analyzer在该人群中提供了可比较的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Practice management. Ocular cicatricial pemphigoid. Retinal capillary hemangioma. Giant papillary conjunctivitis. Nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1