A clinical comparison of visual field testing between Goldmann-type manual perimetry and the Marco MT-336 automated perimeter.
A randomized, prospective clinical trial was performed to compare the Marco MT-336 automated perimeter with Goldmann-type manual kinetic perimetry. The number of true and false, positive and negative scotomas were counted, as determined by the findings on the Marco perimeter, assuming that the Goldmann perimeter was the "gold standard." For eight of the available programs, the accuracy specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were determined. Chi-squared testing across and within programs was performed to determine the degree of agreement between the tests as to the presence or absence of scotomas. Additionally, McNemar's test was used to determine the amount of random disagreement between the two methods of testing. Although there are inherent difficulties in the analysis, the authors conclude that the Marco MT-336 perimeter is an accurate instrument for both detecting and ruling out the presence of visual field defects.
Jennings
B J
BJ
Southern College of Optometry, Chapman Vascular Clinic, Memphis, TN 38104.
Drake
S A
SA
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D002648:Child; D005188:False Negative Reactions; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D011446:Prospective Studies; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D014786:Vision Disorders / Q000175:diagnosis*; D058609:Visual Field Tests / Q000295:instrumentation*; D014794:Visual Fields