University Library
  • Login
A gateway to Melbourne's research publications
Minerva Access is the University's Institutional Repository. It aims to collect, preserve, and showcase the intellectual output of staff and students of the University of Melbourne for a global audience.
View Item 
  • Minerva Access
  • Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences
  • Melbourne Medical School
  • Ophthalmology (Eye & Ear Hospital)
  • Ophthalmology (Eye & Ear Hospital) - Research Publications
  • View Item
  • Minerva Access
  • Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences
  • Melbourne Medical School
  • Ophthalmology (Eye & Ear Hospital)
  • Ophthalmology (Eye & Ear Hospital) - Research Publications
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Comparison between Fastpac and conventional Humphrey perimetry

    Thumbnail
    Citations
    Altmetric
    Author
    Young, Ivan M.; Rait, Julian L.; Guest, Charles S.; Carson, Cathy A.; Taylor, Hugh R.
    Date
    1994
    Source Title
    Australian and New Zealand Journal of Ophthalmology
    Publisher
    Blackwell Publishing
    University of Melbourne Author/s
    Taylor, Hugh
    Affiliation
    Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences: Centre for Eye Research Australia
    School of Medicine: Ophthalmology
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Document Type
    Journal (Paginated)
    Citations
    Young, I. M., Rait, J. L., Guest, C. S., Carson, C. A. & Taylor, H. R. (1994). Comparison between Fastpac and conventional Humphrey perimetry. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Ophthalmology, 22, 95-99.
    Access Status
    This item is currently not available from this repository
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/11343/33440
    Description

    Publisher's version is restricted access in accordance with the publisher's policy.

    Abstract
    As part of the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project, a substudy was performed to determine the efficacy of the newly released Fastpac program for the Humphrey Field Analyser. A comparison was performed of the Fastpac and conventional full threshold 24-2 fields obtained in 39 eyes of 36 participants. Also a comparison study was performed of the standard and non-standard 80-point screening tests to the standard 24-2 full threshold test in 23 eyes of 23 participants.In the full threshold comparison there was 100% agreement between the two with Fastpac being 32% to 39% faster than standard. In the 80-point screening test comparison, nonstandard was no faster than standard. Sensitivities were 17/17 (1.0) for nonstandard and 15/18 (0.83) for standard, as compared with the standard 24-2 full threshold test.Fastpac software offers accurate screening and threshold testing in less time than the standard algorithm.
    Keywords
    CERA; ophthalmology; Centre for Eye Research Australia; eye research; vision; visual health

    Export Reference in RIS Format     

    Endnote

    • Click on "Export Reference in RIS Format" and choose "open with... Endnote".

    Refworks

    • Click on "Export Reference in RIS Format". Login to Refworks, go to References => Import References


    Collections
    • Ophthalmology (Eye & Ear Hospital) - Research Publications [599]
    Minerva AccessDepositing Your Work (for University of Melbourne Staff and Students)NewsFAQs

    BrowseCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects
    My AccountLoginRegister
    StatisticsMost Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors