Advanced search
Publication Cover
Seminars in Ophthalmology Volume 32, 2017 - Issue 5
Submit an article Journal homepage
202
Views
5
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

Comparison of Three Visual Field Tests in Children: Frequency Doubling Test, 24-2 and 30-2 SITA Perimetry

Sangyoun HanDepartment of Ophthalmology, Kim’s Eye Hospital, Seoul, Korea
,
Seung-Hee BaekDepartment of Ophthalmology, Kim’s Eye Hospital, Seoul, Korea
&
Ungsoo Samuel KimDepartment of Ophthalmology, Kim’s Eye Hospital, Seoul, Korea;Department of Ophthalmology, Konyang University College of Medicine, Daejeon, KoreaCorrespondence[email protected]
Pages 647-650 | Published online: 12 Jul 2016

REFERENCES

  • Safran AB, Laffi GL, Bullinger A, et al. Feasibility of automated visual field examination in children between 5 and 8 years of age. Br J Ophthalmol. Jun 1996;80(6):515–518.
  • Sharma AK, Goldberg I, Graham SL, Mohsin M. Comparison of the Humphrey Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA) and full threshold strategies. J Glaucoma. Feb 2000;9(1):20–27.
  • Donahue SP, Porter A. SITA visual field testing in children. J AAPOS. Apr 2001;5(2):114–117.
  • Akar Y, Yilmaz A, Yucel I. Assessment of an effective visual field testing strategy for a normal pediatric population. Ophthalmologica. 2008;222(5):329–333.
  • Nesher R, Norman G, Stern Y, et al. Frequency doubling technology threshold testing in the pediatric age group. J Glaucoma. Aug 2004;13(4):278–282.
  • Johnson CA, Cioffi GA, Van Buskirk EM. Frequency doubling technology perimetry using a 24-2 stimulus presentation pattern. Optom Vis Sci. Aug 1999;76(8):571–581.
  • Becker K, Semes L. The reliability of frequency-doubling technology (FDT) perimetry in a pediatric population. Optometry. Mar 2003;74(3):173–179.
  • Chiselita D, Ioana MC, Danielescu C, Mihaela NM. [FDT versus automated standard perimetry in healthy subjects]. Oftalmologia. 2006;50(3):99–104.
  • Werner EB, Krupin T, Adelson A, Feitl ME. Effect of patient experience on the results of automated perimetry in glaucoma suspect patients. Ophthalmology. Jan 1990;97(1):44–48.
  • Quinn LM, Gardiner SK, Wheeler DT, Newkirk M, Johnson CA. Frequency doubling technology perimetry in normal children. Am J Ophthalmol. Dec 2006;142(6):983–989.
  • Yoon MK, Hwang TN, Day S, Hong J, Porco T, McCulley TJ. Comparison of Humphrey Matrix frequency doubling technology to standard automated perimetry in neuro-ophthalmic disease. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol. Apr–Jun 2012;19(2):211–215.
  • Liu S, Lam S, Weinreb RN, et al. Comparison of standard automated perimetry, frequency-doubling technology perimetry, and short-wavelength automated perimetry for detection of glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. Sep 2011;52(10):7325–7331.
  • Burgansky-Eliash Z, Wollstein G, Patel A, et al. Glaucoma detection with matrix and standard achromatic perimetry. Br J Ophthalmol. Jul 2007;91(7):933–938.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.