Abstract
Forty-seven eyes from 25 patients with neurological disease were examined with an automatic computerized perimeter primarily intended for glaucoma. Manual kinetic and static perimetry with Goldmann's instrument was used for comparison. In 32 fields, the automatic method disclosed all defects that had been found by manual perimetry. Furthermore, it detected three small defects that had been missed in the initial manual examination. The remaining 12 fields were normally using both methods. Consequently, in detecting field defects, the automatic perimeter was superior to the manual method.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Albrecht von Graefes Archiv f�r Klinische und Experimentelle Ophthalmologie
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
