Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparison of Damato campimetry and Humphrey automated perimetry results in a clinical population
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparison of Damato campimetry and Humphrey automated perimetry results in a clinical population
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparison of Damato campimetry and Humphrey automated perimetry results in a clinical population
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Comparison of Damato campimetry and Humphrey automated perimetry results in a clinical population
2010
Overview
Background/aimsThe purpose of the study was to evaluate patients' ease of understanding of Damato campimetry assessment and to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the results compared with Humphrey automated perimetry.MethodsPatients underwent Humphrey perimetry and Damato campimetry on the same day. Patients were excluded if they were unable to undergo Humphrey perimetry. Results were graded as matched, partially matched and not matched with those of Humphrey perimetry.ResultsOne hundred patients (197 eyes) were assessed: 62 women and 38 men with mean age of 62.8 (SD 15.98) years. It was not possible to plot Damato campimetry in 19 eyes (6.5%): 13 due to lack of understanding and six due to low vision. In total 178 eyes were tested with both methods. Results showed 94 eyes as true positives, 45 as true negatives, 22 as false negatives and 17 as false positives. Ninety-five eyes had matched visual field results, five eyes had partial matches and 78 eyes (36%) were not matched. The extent of agreement was 0.216 (95% CI 0.073 to 0.36) with κ analysis.ConclusionsWe found Damato campimetry to be a useful portable device to assess the visual field, with an optimal sensitivity of 81% and a specificity of 72% based on comparison with a Humphrey 24-2 programme. Of the patients studied, 6.5% were unable to do the test and 64% had matched or partially matched results from both assessments. Further study is required to compare complete results with a Humphrey 30-2 programme and also to study populations where patients do not have access to outpatient formal visual field assessments.
Publisher
BMJ Publishing Group Ltd,BMJ Publishing Group,BMJ Publishing Group LTD
Subject
/ Aged
/ Biological and medical sciences
/ diagnostic tests/investigation
/ Eye Diseases - physiopathology
/ Female
/ field of vision, Humphrey field analyser
/ Glaucoma
/ Humans
/ Male
/ Patients
/ Vision Screening - instrumentation
/ Visual Field Tests - instrumentation
