title: Rarebit perimetry for bedside testing: comparison with standard automated perimetry.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Rarebit perimetry (RBP), a technique developed for the detection of early damage to the afferent visual system, has not been extensively tested at the bedside. This study was designed to test the feasibility of bedside testing with RBP in comparison with standard automated perimetry (SAP) performed in the clinic.
  
  
  METHODS
  We tested 29 eyes of 15 subjects admitted with neurologic or neurosurgical diseases affecting the afferent visual system. RBP was performed on a laptop computer at the bedside. SAP (Humphrey field analyzer) testing was performed later in the clinic. Results were evaluated by a masked neuro-ophthalmologist.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Visual fields corresponded between RBP and SAP in 21(72%) of the 29 tested eyes. RBP detected defects in 5 subjects who had normal visual field results on SAP. All subjects preferred RBP for convenience.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  RBP is a convenient method of bedside visual field testing and is no less sensitive to visual field defects in this role than SAP.
authors.affiliation: University of Virginia School of Medicine (SKSH), Charlottesville, Virginia 2290, USA.
authors.forename: Samuel K
authors.initials: SK
authors.lastname: Steven Houston
authors.forename: Eric D
authors.initials: ED
authors.lastname: Weber
authors.forename: Sebastian F
authors.initials: SF
authors.lastname: Koga
authors.forename: Steven A
authors.initials: SA
authors.lastname: Newman
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D003936:Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009422:Nervous System Diseases / Q000150:complications; D019095:Point-of-Care Systems; D014786:Vision Disorders / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000209:etiology; D058609:Visual Field Tests / Q000379:methods*; D014794:Visual Fields / Q000502:physiology*