Comparative evaluation of the Autofield-I®, CFA-120®, and Fieldmaster Model 101-PR® automated perimeters

C. A. Johnson, John L Keltner

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

21 Scopus citations

Abstract

Clinical evaluations of the Autofield-I®, CFA-120®, and Fieldmaster Model 101-PR® automated perimeters were performed in comparison with manual kinetic testing on the Goldmann perimeter. All the automated perimeters displayed similar high rates of detecting visual field defects, although their false-alarm (false-positive) rates were considerably different. The principal factors responsible for high-detection and low false-alarm rates are discussed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)777-784
Number of pages8
JournalOphthalmology
Volume87
Issue number8
StatePublished - 1980

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Comparative evaluation of the Autofield-I®, CFA-120®, and Fieldmaster Model 101-PR® automated perimeters'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this