dc.contributor.author | Young, Ivan M. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Rait, Julian L. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Guest, Charles S. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Carson, Cathy A. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Taylor, Hugh R. | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2014-05-22T09:04:24Z | |
dc.date.available | 2014-05-22T09:04:24Z | |
dc.date.issued | 1994 | en_US |
dc.date.submitted | 2006-11-06 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | 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. | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11343/33440 | |
dc.description | Publisher's version is restricted access in accordance with the publisher's policy. | en_US |
dc.description.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. | en_US |
dc.format | application/pdf | en_US |
dc.language | eng | en_US |
dc.publisher | Blackwell Publishing | en_US |
dc.subject | CERA | en_US |
dc.subject | ophthalmology | en_US |
dc.subject | Centre for Eye Research Australia | en_US |
dc.subject | eye research | en_US |
dc.subject | vision | en_US |
dc.subject | visual health | en_US |
dc.title | Comparison between Fastpac and conventional Humphrey perimetry | en_US |
dc.type | Journal (Paginated) | en_US |
melbourne.peerreview | Peer Reviewed | en_US |
melbourne.affiliation.department | Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences: Centre for Eye Research Australia | en_US |
melbourne.affiliation.department | School of Medicine: Ophthalmology | en_US |
melbourne.publication.status | Published | en_US |
melbourne.source.title | Australian and New Zealand Journal of Ophthalmology | en_US |
melbourne.source.volume | 22 | en_US |
melbourne.source.pages | 95-99 | en_US |
melbourne.elementsid | NA | |
melbourne.contributor.author | Taylor, Hugh | |
melbourne.accessrights | This item is currently not available from this repository | |