Laser pointer visual field screening.
BACKGROUND
Sensitivity of confrontation visual field (CVF) screening is low unless defects are significant. We compared the sensitivity of laser pointer visual field screening (LVF) with conventional CVF for identifying eyes with abnormal automated perimetry.


METHODS
Ninety consecutive patients presenting for HVF prospectively underwent a masked comparison of CVF and LVF testing (175 eyes) from April to May 2000. LVF was performed using a laser pointer target projected onto a tangent screen. Points were tested in random fashion on either side of the vertical and horizontal meridians, near central fixation, around the blind spot, and in each quadrant. Single and double simultaneous finger counting was used to test CVF.


RESULTS
LVF demonstrated significantly greater sensitivity as compared with CVF (73% versus 31%, P = 0.001) in identifying field defects found on HVF. Specificities for LVF and CVF were 82% and 99%, respectively. The average testing times per eye were 0.5 minute for CVF, 1.5 minutes for LVF, and 8.0 minutes for HVF.


CONCLUSIONS
In this cohort, laser visual field testing was significantly more sensitive than confrontation testing. It may represent an effective, time-efficient tool for visual field screening.
Lee
Michael S
MS
Cole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Balcer
Laura J
LJ
Volpe
Nicholas J
NJ
Liu
Grant T
GT
Ying
Gui S
GS
Galetta
Steven L
SL
D015331:Cohort Studies; D003936:Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted; D006801:Humans; D007834:Lasers; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D016037:Single-Blind Method; D014786:Vision Disorders / Q000175:diagnosis; D015351:Vision Screening / Q000379:methods*; D058609:Visual Field Tests / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods*; D014794:Visual Fields