ライフサイエンスコーパス: visual field test

1 ts within the central 10 degrees of the 24-2 visual field test.

2 end primarily to the PASAT while taking each visual field test.

3 an did the Esterman and four novel binocular visual field tests.

4 the acuity, contrast sensitivity, glare, and visual field tests.

5 %) had experience of undergoing more than 11 visual field tests.

6 ults from cross-sectional studies evaluating visual field tests.

7 nt changes were detected in visual acuity or visual field tests.

8 nocular baseline SITA-standard (SITA-S) 24-2 visual field tests.

9 y-summation algorithm and all five binocular visual field tests.

10 with statistical abnormalities in automated visual field testing.

11 tients were followed up with angiography and visual field testing.

12 coherence tomography, electroretinogram and visual field testing.

13 be referred to an ophthalmologist for formal visual field testing.

14 ed with measures of retinal sensitivity from visual field testing.

15 OCT imaging, mfERG testing, and, in 1 case, visual field testing.

16 inography (ERG), multifocal ERG, and central visual field testing.

17 giography, optical coherence tomography, and visual field testing.

18 eyes (19 subjects) underwent VEP, mfVEP, and visual field testing.

19 lso included pupil size data obtained during visual field testing.

20 moderate, and severe glaucoma, determined by visual field testing.

21 ptical coherence tomography (OCT), automated visual field testing (10-2 visual field mean deviation [

22 48+/-0.13; P = 0.006), and mean deviation on visual field testing (-10.0+/-10.3 vs. -1.2+/-1.2; P < 0

23 evaluated using IOP measurements and data on visual field testing/a diagnosis of glaucoma (if availab

24 d techniques and also with two types of 24-2 visual field tests: a full-threshold SWAP blue-on-yellow

25 nxiety or distraction on subjects performing visual field testing, also in random order.

26 An online visual field test (an 'app') was developed as part of a

27 ye examination with optic nerve photographs, visual field test and optic nerve OCT with RNFL thicknes

28 glaucoma include intraocular pressure test, visual field test and optical coherence tomography are p

29 jects, but their performance at the scotopic visual field test and perceptual task did not differ sig

30 ional examinations were performed, including visual field testing and electro-oculography (EOG).

31 Esterman binocular visual field testing and four other binocular visual fie

32 ts with OAG across the United States receive visual field testing and how patient characteristics and

33 Up to now, visual acuity measurement, visual field testing and orthoptic testing are the most

34 d flow and standard glaucoma evaluation with visual field testing and quantitative structural imaging

35 One patient also underwent visual field testing and spectral domain-optical coheren

36 plemented to improve patient experience with visual field testing and to increase reliability.

37 on) who had 2 or more reliable 24-2 and 10-2 visual field tests and good-quality spectral-domain opti

38 ace-based context into the interpretation of visual field tests and highlight the value of combining

39 eyes of the 107 participants underwent 10-2 visual field tests and SD-OCT scans, and all participant

40 ted visual acuity (BCVA), color vision test, visual field test, and peripapillary retinal nerve fiber

41 erwent SD-OCT of the optic nerve head (ONH), visual field testing, and clinical examination.

42 race, gender, year of publication, method of visual field testing, and effect of reliance on IOP in t

43 VA), schisis cavity volume, static perimetry visual field testing, and electroretinography (ERG).

44 domain optical coherence tomography, kinetic visual field testing, and electroretinography.

45 cuity, autorefraction, intraocular pressure, visual field testing, and fundus imaging.

46 acuity (BCVA), mean deviation (MD) scores on visual field testing, and log contrast sensitivity (CS).

47 , best-corrected VA, digital fundus imaging, visual field testing, and measurement of intraocular pre

48 s include visual acuity, optic nerve photos, visual field testing, and OCT.

49 Here, we utilized OCT, OCT-angiography, visual field testing, and patient-specific dosimetry mod

50 tion, central corneal thickness measurement, visual field testing, and stereoscopic fundus photograph

51 examinations including intraocular pressure, visual field testing, and stereoscopic fundus photograph

52 ed (mean) 2.0 glaucoma clinic visits and 1.5 visual field tests, and 7% underwent glaucoma procedure(

53 , central corneal thickness measurement, and visual field testing; and a thorough general examination

54 -lamp and optic nerve examination; automated visual field testing; and fundus color photography.

55 Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc., Dublin, CA) and had visual field testing at the same visits.

56 New devices may allow patients to complete visual field tests at home, which could relieve patients

57 Trust in Provider Scale (TPS) and performed visual field tests at least two years apart.

58 A) for RNFLT and PcVD, and Octopus Normal G2 visual field testing, at 6-month intervals for 2.5 years

59 urement, Frequency Doubling Technology (FDT) visual field testing, autorefraction, A-scan biometry an

60 graphy, provide an alternative to subjective visual field testing but are not yet ready for widesprea

61 od for monitoring patient vigilance during a visual field test by using pupillometry.

62 luate the relationship between MD slope from visual field tests collected over a short period of time

63 c stereophotographs taken within 6 months of visual field testing, conducted within a 3-month period.

64 Visual field testing confirmed an inferior-temporal scot

65 isual field testing and four other binocular visual field tests (designated peripheral 20 dB [p20], p

66 gical examination, color fundus photography, visual field testing, detailed electrophysiological asse

67 The SSVR headset is a novel visual field testing device that produces similar result

68 n K-pro patients should be monitored through visual field testing, direct visualization and structura

69 n the study, 33 267 (8.8%) did not receive a visual field test during the study period, 259 349 (68.2

70 Glaucoma Treatment Study patients with >/=5 visual field tests during follow-up were included.

71 rticipants who passed the Esterman binocular visual field test for driving in the United Kingdom (at

72 41 of 43 patients (95%) passed the Esterman visual field test for driving; after completion of laser

73 a from 2008 to 2017, the median time between visual field tests for patients with glaucoma was once e

74 If US patients with OAG do not receive visual field tests frequently enough, interventions to i

75 ded into an advanced (mean deviation of 24-2 visual field tests from -12.01 to -20.0 dB) and severe (

76 ded into an advanced (mean deviation of 24-2 visual field tests from -12.01 to -20.0 dB) and severe (

77 hotography, fundus autofluorescence imaging, visual field testing, full-field electroretinography, an

78 Clinical investigations included visual field testing, fundus examination, high-resolutio

79 vailable retinal imaging, including Humphrey visual field testing, fundus photography (FP), OCT, fluo

80 The visual field test had slightly higher area under the cur

81 Visual field testing has played an essential role in the

82 The binocular visual field test (HEVF) seems not be as efficient as th

83 was the mean deviation (MD) of an automated visual field test (Humphrey Field Analyzer; Carl Zeiss M

84 They underwent three visual field tests-Humphrey visual field analyzer 24-2,

85 The monocular visual field test (HVF) gave more specific information a

86 Participants (n = 6082) underwent Humphrey visual field testing (HVF), frequency doubling technolog

87 Then, color fundus photographs and Humphrey Visual Field tests (HVF) of these eyes were mixed with t

88 m (p < 0.001), and the mean deviation in the visual field test improved from - 8.77 dB to -6.17 dB (p

89 Spatial scale characterized the visual field tested in perimetry well and can contribute

90 lar, there is a marked deficiency in correct visual field testing in Asian patients.

91 ive frequency of gonioscopy, pachymetry, and visual field testing in conjunction with new patient vis

92 layer (GCL) thickness, macular thickness and visual field testing in migraine patients without aura.

93 ed (FASTPAC) and white (SITA) 10-2 automated visual field testing in the course of their management.

94 Participants recalled that they completed visual field tests in median of 6 minutes (IQR, 5-8 minu

95 phthalmological testing (i.e. visual acuity, visual field testing) in children with a brain tumor.

96 Each participant underwent visual field testing, including FDT perimetry screening,

97 patients in hospital where access to formal visual field testing is difficult, or indeed in rapid te

98 Visual field testing is important for diagnostic purpose

99 ormation regarding the views of patients, on visual field testing is limited, and no information exis

100 For detection of functional loss standard visual field testing is not optimum; a combination of tw

101 disease with psychophysical measures such as visual field tests is important to clarify to determine

102 hieved using the 24-2C grid, but half of the visual field test locations did not coincide with the co

103 were measured at locations corresponding to visual field test loci up to 21 degrees eccentricity.

104 Clinical visual field testing may be unreliable when visual field

105 inor central defect" (mean deviation on 10-2 visual field test [MD10] > -10 dB) and "significant cent

106 ual field tests per eye and the frequency of visual field tests (median, 3 visits per year; IQR, 2-4

107 mely investigations, including an iPad-based visual field test (Melbourne Rapid Field, (MRF)) conduct

108 hrey Matrix 24-2 testing strategy provides a visual field testing method for optic nerve and chiasmal

109 These results suggest that either visual field testing needs to be done more frequently or

110 ic Depression Scale (GDS) questionnaires and visual field tests obtained over a mean follow-up time o

111 Moreover, Humphrey visual field test, OCT examination and recording of mfVE

112 nge, 4.5 to 10.5 years) and a mean number of visual field tests of 9.5 (range, 7 to 16) were included

113 Visual field tests of patients with or suspected glaucom

114 Patients completed both HFA and SSVR visual field tests on the same day, with the order of te

115 Focusing visual-field testing on the locations of present scotoma

116 pharmacy records and who were evaluated with visual field testing or spectral-domain optical coherenc

117 and report being prepared to undergo longer visual field tests or more visual field tests to achieve

118 in the detection of glaucoma, as defined by visual-field testing or red-free photography.

119 they frequently performed either tonometry, visual field testing, or fundus examination during glauc

120 This review examines the evolution of modern visual field testing over the past 40 years, focusing on

121 Participants with 5 or more visual field tests over a 2- to 5-year period were inclu

122 derived OCT image features), and functional (visual field test parameters) data and the intervisit in

123 Visual acuity, automated visual field testing, pattern electroretinogram, and spe

124 ility as they have only been described using visual field test patterns with low, 6 degrees spatial s

125 than 75% of enrollees with OAG received < 1 visual field test per year and, thus, did not receive gu

126 were prepared to increase both the number of visual field tests per eye and the frequency of visual f

127 The median number of visual field tests per year was 0.63 (interquartile rang

128 riod, 259 349 (68.2%) underwent > 0 to < 0.9 visual field tests per year, 42 129 (11.1%) underwent >=

129 r, 42 129 (11.1%) underwent >= 0.9 to <= 1.1 visual field tests per year, 42 301 (11.1%) underwent >

130 ar, 42 301 (11.1%) underwent > 1.1 to <= 2.1 visual field tests per year, and 2983 (0.8%) underwent >

131 s per year, and 2983 (0.8%) underwent >= 2.1 visual field tests per year.

132 significant progression or improvement of a visual field test point was defined if its regression sl

133 Of 485 patients, 198 (41%) underwent visual field testing prior to surgery; 51 (26%) had VFDs

134 he assessment of a pituitary mass, objective visual field testing represents a valuable means of eval

135 the 4 central fixation squares on a reliable visual field test result.

136 visual fields, analysis of a small number of visual field test results (<8) overestimated the number

137 Visual field test results from 1 eye of 364 patients (77

138 Goldmann visual field test results improved in all patients.

139 ntribute to a large proportion of unreliable visual field test results, particularly when using SITA-

140 ed glaucoma histories and Humphrey threshold visual field tests (San Leandro, CA) were obtained from

141 Standardized ophthalmologic exams, visual field testing (SITA Standard 24-2), and OCT-based

142 nships were compared after correction of the visual field test stimulus location that stimulated the

143 After completing both visual field tests, subjects completed a survey regardin

144 Visual field testing that is not frequent enough results

145 We calculated the number of visual field tests that each enrollee with OAG underwent

146 s that were associated with the frequency of visual field tests that enrollees with OAG received.

147 During the visual field testing, the PASAT was again administered c

148 t has a significant effect on the results of visual field testing, the Visual Field Index may be less

149 ffect did not enhance the reliability of the visual field test to a statistically significant degree.

150 t systems could help tailor the frequency of visual field testing to the needs of individual patients

151 to undergo longer visual field tests or more visual field tests to achieve that outcome.

152 eristic curves were created for the UFOV and visual field tests, to determine accuracy in detecting t

153 Visual field testing uses high-contrast stimuli in areas

154 All participants underwent visual field testing using the 60-4 threshold test on th

155 s in functional variables (Humphrey photopic visual field testing using the Swedish interactive thres

156 tions designed to explore opinions regarding visual field testing, visit attendance for perimetry, as

157 Their mean deviation (SD) from visual field testing was -5.5 (4.3) dB.

158 nogram (ffERG) was completed in 12 patients, visual field testing was completed in 5 patients.

159 of all three recommended imaging modalities, visual field testing was done appropriately for only 8.3

160 Visual field testing was performed in each eye, and IVF

161 All visual field testing was performed on the right eye usin

162 The mean (+/-SD) number of visual field tests was 7.89 +/- 3.04.

163 al coherence tomography scans and 1 baseline visual field test were included.

164 Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and visual field test were investigated.

165 Criteria for abnormality on each visual field test were selected to approximate a specifi

166 gment optical coherence tomography (OCT) and visual field tests were collected using standard automat

167 lberg Engineering, Dossenheim, Germany), and visual field tests were repeated every 6 months.

168 Visual field testing will continue to have an important

169 Visual field testing with MRF performed at home showed s

170 acuity examination, fundus photography, and visual field testing with screening frequency-doubling t

171 s of 114 patients with OHT with four or more visual field tests with standard automated perimetry ove