mdh.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
New perimetric techniques: a comparison between rarebit and frequency doubling technology perimetry in normal subjects and glaucoma patients
Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5976-5193
St. Erik's Eye Hospital, Sweden.
2004 (English)In: Journal of glaucoma, ISSN 1057-0829, E-ISSN 1536-481X, Vol. 13, no 4, p. 268-72Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

PURPOSE: To compare rarebit microdot perimetry (RB) with frequency doubling technology (FDT) perimetry in normal subjects and a group of patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma, with age-matched controls. MATERIALS AND METHODS:: Eighty-one subjects (age 17-88 years) were examined. Twenty-seven of these were patients, aged 50 to 88 years, with ocular hypertension or suspected/manifest glaucoma in at least one eye. All subjects were examined with the RB and FDT perimetry, using the standard procedures, recommended by the respective manufacturer. RESULTS: All patients were able to perform the RB perimetry, but three patients could not perceive the strongest FDT stimulus. The concordance in RB and FDT classifications as normal/outside normal limits was 96% (Cohen's kappa = 0.90). A curvilinear (quadratic) relationship (Rsq = 0.75) was found between RB hit rate and FDT MD. All patients, who could perform both examinations, preferred the RB perimetry. CONCLUSION: In the current study, the information from the RB and FDT perimetry was almost completely equivalent. However, RB perimetry was preferred by the patients and seemed to have a larger dynamic range than FDT. The RB hit rate is apparently a straightforward and efficient measure of visual field function.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2004. Vol. 13, no 4, p. 268-72
National Category
Ophthalmology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mdh:diva-10559DOI: 10.1097/00061198-200408000-00002ISI: 000222729900002PubMedID: 15226653Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-3242660870OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mdh-10559DiVA, id: diva2:360184
Available from: 2010-11-02 Created: 2010-10-27 Last updated: 2017-12-12Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records BETA

Martin, Lene

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Martin, Lene
In the same journal
Journal of glaucoma
Ophthalmology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 115 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf