Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 14663305

Laser pointer visual field screening.

Michael S Lee·Laura J Balcer·Nicholas J Volpe·Grant T Liu·Gui S Ying·Steven L Galetta
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Sensitivity of confrontation visual field (CVF) screening is low unless defects are significant. We compared the sensitivity of laser pointer visual field screening (LVF) with conventional CVF for identifying eyes with abnormal automated perimetry. METHODS: Ninety consecutive patients presenting for HVF prospectively underwent a masked comparison of CVF and LVF testing (175 eyes) from April to May 2000. LVF was performed using a laser pointer target projected onto a tangent screen. Points were tested in random fashion on either side of the vertical and horizontal meridians, near central fixation, around the blind spot, and in each quadrant. Single and double simultaneous finger counting was used to test CVF. RESULTS: LVF demonstrated significantly greater sensitivity as compared with CVF (73% versus 31%, P = 0.001) in identifying field defects found on HVF. Specificities for LVF and CVF were 82% and 99%, respectively. The average testing times per eye were 0.5 minute for CVF, 1.5 minutes for LVF, and 8.0 minutes for HVF. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, laser visual field testing was significantly more sensitive than confrontation testing. It may represent an effective, time-efficient tool for visual field screening.

Explore related subjects

Cohort StudiesDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedHumansLasersSensitivity and SpecificitySingle-Blind MethodVision DisordersVision ScreeningVisual Field TestsVisual FieldsClinical TrialComparative StudyControlled Clinical TrialJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tResearch Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Michael S Lee, Laura J Balcer, Nicholas J Volpe, Grant T Liu, Gui S Ying, Steven L Galetta. 2003. Laser pointer visual field screening.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00041327-200312000-00004

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2005

Measurement error model for misclassified binary responses.

The article considers regression models for binary response in a situation when the response is subject to classification error. It is also assumed that some of the covariates are unobservable, but measurements on its surrogates are available. Likelihood based analysis is developed to fit the model. A sensitivity analysis is also carried out through simulation to ascertain the effect of ignoring classification error and/or measurement error on the estimation of regression parameters. At the end, the methodology developed in this paper is illustrated through an example.

Cohort Studies↗
PubMed2005

Comparability of dietary patterns assessed by multiple dietary assessment methods: results from the 1946 British Birth Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the consistency of dietary patterns assessed through the use of a dietary recall and a 5-day food diary. DESIGN: Participants (n = 2265) of a longitudinal study of health and development completed 48-h dietary recall at interview, followed by a 5-day food diary and with the 24 h immediately preceding the interview analysed separately as a 24-h recall. Mean intakes of foods and nutrients were calculated and dietary patterns were assessed using exploratory factor analysis, using the method of principal components. Paired t-tests and correlation coefficients were used to compare the three dietary assessment methods. RESULTS: Five distinct dietary patterns were identified using the food diary and the 48-h recall but were less consistent on the 24-h recall. Correlations between factor scores on the 48-h recall and the food diary (r = 0.13-0.67) were higher than those between the 24-h recall and food diary (r = -0.01-0.59). The recall methods were effective at ranking subjects according to food and nutrient intakes, with the 48-h recall and food diary showing higher correlations in both males and females. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that a 48-h recall effectively characterises dietary patterns in British adults when compared to a food diary and ranks participants appropriately with respect to most nutrients and foods and is superior to a single 24-h recall. These results have implications for longitudinal studies where maximising response rates to repeat dietary assessment tools is essential.

Cohort Studies↗
PubMed2005

Barriers to screening infants for retinopathy of prematurity after discharge or transfer from a neonatal intensive care unit.

OBJECTIVE: To assess neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) practices affecting screening and follow-up for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP). METHODS: Retrospective study of infants at risk for ROP, eligible for back transport, admitted to a regional NICU from January 1, 1999 until May 31, 2002. Patients failed to receive needed follow-up for ROP after discharge or transfer from a NICU, if we could not verify their ROP screening follow-up within 1 month. RESULTS: A total of 74 infants were identified to need follow-up eye care. Infants who did not receive the follow-up care had greater mean gestational age (mean SD; 30.7+/-2.3 vs 29.6+/-2.5 weeks, p=0.05) and birth weights (mean SD; 1581+/-366 vs 1360+/-508 g, p=0.007), compared to infants who received the recommended care. Infants transported back to the community hospital were significantly more likely to miss follow-up eye care compared to infants discharged from the regional center (relative risk 2.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.09 to 7.20)). Infants not screened for ROP in the NICU had greater risk for missing follow-up care compared to infants who had their first retinal examination in the NICU (relative risk 4.25, 95% CI (1.42 to 12.73)). CONCLUSIONS: Infants transferred back or discharged from the NICU before ROP screening represent a high-risk group for not receiving follow-up eye care.

Cohort Studies↗