Parallel rarebits: A novel, large‐scale visual field screening method

References

• Congdon NG, Friedman DS, Lietman T. Important causes of visual impairment in the world today. JAMA 2003; 290: 2057–2060.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munoz B, West SK. Blindness and visual impairment in the Americas and the Caribbean. Br J Ophthalmol 2002; 86: 498–504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rahi JS. Childhood blindness: a UK epidemiological perspective. Eye (Lond) 2007; 21: 1249–1253.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salomao SR, Mitsuhiro MR, Belfort R Jr. Visual impairment and blindness: an overview of prevalence and causes in Brazil. An Acad Bras Cienc 2009; 81: 539–549.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uzma N, Kumar BS, Khaja mohinuddin salar BM, Zafar MA, Reddy VD. A comparative clinical survey of the prevalence of refractive errors and eye diseases in urban and rural school children. Can J Ophthalmol 2009; 44: 328–333.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schiefer U, Gisolf AC, Kirsch J, Selbmann HK, Zrenner E. [Noise field screening. Results of a television field study for detection of visual field defects]. Ophthalmologe 1996; 93: 604–616.
   Google Scholar
• Houston SK, Weber ED, Koga SF, Newman SA. Rarebit perimetry for bedside testing: comparison with standard automated perimetry. J Neuroophthalmol 2010; 30: 243–247.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Celebisoy N, Ozturk T, Kose T. Rarebit perimetry in the evaluation of visual field defects in idiopathic intracranial hypertension. Eur J Ophthalmol 2010; 20: 756–762.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corallo G, Iester M, Scotto R, Calabria G, Traverso CE. Rarebit perimetry and frequency doubling technology in patients with ocular hypertension. Eur J Ophthalmol 2008; 18: 205–211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nilsson M, Abdiu O, Laurell CG, Martin L. Rarebit perimetry and fovea test before and after cataract surgery. Acta Ophthalmol 2010; 88: 479–482.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agervi P, Nilsson M, Martin L. Foveal function in children treated for amblyopia. Acta Ophthalmol 2010; 88: 222–226.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aleci C, Usai T. Testing spatial detection and light sensitivity in homonymous hemianopia by rarebit and conventional automated perimetry. Open Ophthalmol J 2008; 2: 153–159.
   Google Scholar
• Martin L, Wanger P. New perimetric techniques: a comparison between rarebit and frequency doubling technology perimetry in normal subjects and glaucoma patients. J Glaucoma 2004; 13: 268–272.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin L. Rarebit and frequency‐doubling technology perimetry in children and young adults. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2005; 83: 670–677.
   Google Scholar
• Alencar LM, Medeiros FA. The role of standard automated perimetry and newer functional methods for glaucoma diagnosis and follow‐up. Indian J Ophthalmol 2011; 59 Suppl: S53–S58.
   Google Scholar
• Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, Tosoni C, Parisi L, Brusini P. Non‐conventional perimetric methods in the detection of early glaucomatous functional damage. Eye (Lond) 2010; 24: 835–842.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, Parisi L, Brusini P. Rarebit perimetry in normal subjects: test‐retest variability, learning effect, normative range, influence of optical defocus, and cataract extraction. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007; 48: 5320–5331.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frisen L. New, sensitive window on abnormal spatial vision: rarebit probing. Vision Res 2002; 42: 1931–1939.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wadood AC, Azuara‐blanco A, Aspinall P, Taguri A, King AJ. Sensitivity and specificity of frequency‐doubling technology, tendency‐oriented perimetry and Humphrey Swedish interactive threshold algorithm‐fast perimetry in a glaucoma practice. Am J Ophthalmol 2002; 133: 327–332.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin LM, Nilsson AL. Rarebit perimetry and optic disk topography in pediatric glaucoma. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 2007; 44: 223–231.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chin CF, Yip LW, Sim DC, Yeo AC. Rarebit perimetry: normative values and test‐retest variability. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2011; 39: 752–759.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vislisel JM, Doyle CK, Johnson CA, Wall M. Variability of rarebit and standard perimetry sizes I and III in normals. Optom Vis Sci 2011; 88: 635–639.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hellgren K, Hellstrom A, Martin L. Visual fields and optic disc morphology in very low birthweight adolescents examined with magnetic resonance imaging of the brain. Acta Ophthalmol 2009; 87: 843–848.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nilsson M, Wanger P, Martin L. Perception of very small visual stimuli in the fovea: normative data for the Rarebit Foveal Test. Clin Exp Optom 2006; 89: 81–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ohno‐matsui K, Shimada N, Yasuzumi K, Hayashi K, Yoshida T, Kojima A, Moriyama M et al. Long‐term development of significant visual field defects in highly myopic eyes. Am J Ophthalmol 2011; 152: 256–265.
   Google Scholar
• Kumar RS, Baskaran M, Singh K, Aung T. Clinical characterization of young Chinese myopes with optic nerve and visual field changes resembling glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2012; 21: 281–286.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brusini P, Salvetat ML, Parisi L, Zeppieri M. Probing glaucoma visual damage by rarebit perimetry. Br J Ophthalmol 2005; 89: 180–184.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hackett D, Anderson, A. Determining mechanisms of visual loss in glaucoma using rarebit perimetry. Optom Vis Sci 2011; 88: 48–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frisen L. Performance of a rapid rarebit central‐vision test with optic neuropathies. Optom Vis Sci 2012; 89: 1192–1195.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yavas GF, Kusbeci T, Eser O, Ermis SS, Cosar M, Ozturk F. A new visual field test in empty sella syndrome: rarebit perimetry. Eur J Ophthalmol 2008; 18: 628–632.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar