Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparison of the TEMPO binocular perimeter and Humphrey field analyzer
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 the TEMPO binocular perimeter and Humphrey field analyzer
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparison of the TEMPO binocular perimeter and Humphrey field analyzer
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 the TEMPO binocular perimeter and Humphrey field analyzer
2023
Overview
This study compared between TEMPO, a new binocular perimeter, with the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA). Patients were tested with both TEMPO 24–2 Ambient Interactive Zippy Estimated by Sequential Testing (AIZE)-Rapid and HFA 24–2 Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA)-Fast in a randomized sequence on the same day. Using a mixed-effects model, visual field (VF) parameters and reliability indices were compared. Retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness was measured using Cirrus optical coherence tomography (OCT), and coefficient of determinations for VF and OCT parameters were calculated and compared using Akaike information criteria. 740 eyes (including 68 healthy, 262 glaucoma suspects, and 410 glaucoma) of 370 participants were evaluated. No significant differences were seen in mean deviation and visual field index between the two perimeters (P > 0.05). A stronger association between VF mean sensitivity (dB or 1/L) and circumpapillary RNFL was found for TEMPO (adjusted R
2
= 0.25; Akaike information criteria [AIC] = 5235.5 for dB, and adjusted R
2
= 0.29; AIC = 5200.8 for 1/L, respectively) compared to HFA (adjusted R
2
= 0.22; AIC = 5263.9 for dB, and adjusted R
2
= 0.22; AIC = 5262.7 for 1/L, respectively). Measurement time was faster for TEMPO compared to HFA (261 s vs. 429 s, P < 0.001). Further investigations are needed to assess the long-term monitoring potential of this binocular VF test.
Publisher
Nature Publishing Group UK,Nature Publishing Group,Nature Portfolio
We currently cannot retrieve any items related to this title. Kindly check back at a later time.