Ophthalmologica

Original Paper

Die Perimetrie des blinden Flecks

Ein Vergleich zwischen kinetischer und computergesteuerter statischer Perimetrie

Gramer E. · Pröll M. · Krieglstein G.K.

Author affiliations

Universitäts-Augenklinik (Direktor: Prof. Dr. Dr. h. c. W. Leydhecker), Würzburg

Related Articles for ""

Ophthalmologica 1979;179:201–208

Log in to MyKarger to check if you already have access to this content.


Buy

  • FullText & PDF
  • Unlimited re-access via MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

CHF 38.00 *
EUR 35.00 *
USD 39.00 *

Select

KAB

Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!


If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.


Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.

Learn more

Rent/Cloud

  • Rent for 48h to view
  • Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
  • Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
  • Printing and saving restrictions apply

Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00

Select

Subscribe

  • Access to all articles of the subscribed year(s) guaranteed for 5 years
  • Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

Subcription rates


Select
* The final prices may differ from the prices shown due to specifics of VAT rules.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Received: August 10, 1979
Accepted: August 20, 1979
Published online: March 30, 2010
Issue release date: 1979

Number of Print Pages: 8
Number of Figures: 0
Number of Tables: 0

ISSN: 0030-3755 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0267 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/OPH

Abstract

The reproducibility of perimetrie results on the blind spot has been investigated under controlled conditions using the kinetic perimetry of Goldmann and the computerized static perimeter of Krakau-Heijl. At defined time intervals kinetic perimetry was performed twice by two independent well-trained perimetrists on 178 eyes of 107 patients; the same eyes and patients were examined twice with the computer perimeter as well. Perimetrie results obtained from 158 eyes were considered for statistics. There was qualitative agreement based on the alternative ‘normal’ or ‘pathological’ in kinetic perimetry in 74% of the double examinations and in 89% in computer perimetry. Identical size of the blind spot in repeated examinations was found in 34% with the Goldmann perimeter and in 78% with the computer perimeter. Observer variability of the static computer perimetry of the blind spot was compared with the variability of the results on the rest of the central visual field.

© 1979 S. Karger AG, Basel




Related Articles:


Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Received: August 10, 1979
Accepted: August 20, 1979
Published online: March 30, 2010
Issue release date: 1979

Number of Print Pages: 8
Number of Figures: 0
Number of Tables: 0

ISSN: 0030-3755 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0267 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/OPH


Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
TOP