Comparison between Fastpac and conventional Humphrey perimetry
AuthorYoung, Ivan M.; Rait, Julian L.; Guest, Charles S.; Carson, Cathy A.; Taylor, Hugh R.
Source TitleAustralian and New Zealand Journal of Ophthalmology
University of Melbourne Author/sTaylor, Hugh
AffiliationMedicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences: Centre for Eye Research Australia
School of Medicine: Ophthalmology
Document TypeJournal (Paginated)
CitationsYoung, 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 StatusThis item is currently not available from this repository
Publisher's version is restricted access in accordance with the publisher's policy.
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.
KeywordsCERA; ophthalmology; Centre for Eye Research Australia; eye research; vision; visual health
- Click on "Export Reference in RIS Format" and choose "open with... Endnote".
- Click on "Export Reference in RIS Format". Login to Refworks, go to References => Import References