Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Dr Ranjeet Pandit, Philip Griffiths
Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.
Many tests are used to examine visual fields by confrontation, but such methods have not been thoroughly compared with an accepted reference standard. The choice of test might affect the identification of subtle defects in the visual field. We prospectively compared seven confrontation field tests with full-threshold automated static perimetry among 138 outpatients in an eye clinic. Our primary outcome was detection of a defect in the visual field. With automated perimetry, most field defects were small or shallow. Most confrontation field tests were insensitive in the identification of field loss. The most sensitive method was examination of the central 20 degrees visual field with a small red target (73% [95% CI 63-82]). Assessment of the visual field should thus Include such a test.
Author(s): Griffiths PG; Pandit RJ; Gales K
Publication type: Article
Publication status: Published
Journal: Lancet
Year: 2001
Volume: 358
Issue: 9290
Pages: 1339-1340
ISSN (print): 0140-6736
ISSN (electronic): 1474-547X
Publisher: The Lancet Publishing Group
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06448-0
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06448-0
Altmetrics provided by Altmetric