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 language||English (US)|
|Number of pages||8|
|State||Published - 1980|
ASJC Scopus subject areas