title: Comparative evaluation of the Autofield-I, CFA-120, and Fieldmaster Model 101-PR automated perimeters.
abstract: Clinical evaluations of the Autofield-I, CFA-120, and Fieldmaster Model 101-PR automated perimeters were performed in comparison with manual kinetic testing on the Goldmann perimeter. All the automated perimeters displayed similar high rates of detecting visual field defects, although their false-alarm (false-positive) rates were considerably different. The principal factors responsible for high-detection and low false-alarm rates are discussed.
mesh_terms: D005069:Evaluation Studies as Topic; D005128:Eye Diseases / Q000175:diagnosis; D005189:False Positive Reactions; D006801:Humans; D058609:Visual Field Tests / Q000295:instrumentation*; D014794:Visual Fields