FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2063765367> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2063765367 endingPage "1162" @default.
• W2063765367 startingPage "1162" @default.
• W2063765367 abstract "<h3>Objective</h3> To assess the potential role of Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm(SITA) Fast computerized static perimetry, compared with that of Goldmann manual kinetic perimetry (GVF), for reliably detecting visual field defects in neuro-ophthalmic practice. <h3>Background</h3> Automated visual field testing is challenging in patients with poor visual acuity or severe neurological disease. In these patients, GVF is often the preferred visual field technique, but performance of this test requires a skilled technician, and this option may not be readily available. The recent development of the SITA family of perimetry has allowed for shorter automated perimetry testing time in normal subjects and in glaucoma patients. However, its usefulness for detecting visual field defects in patients with poor vision or neurological disease has not been evaluated. <h3>Design and Methods</h3> We prospectively studied 64 consecutive, neuro-ophthalmologically impaired patients with neurologic disability of 3 or more on the Modified Rankin Scale, or with visual acuity of 20/200 or worse in at least one eye. Goldmann manual kinetic perimetry and SITA Fast results were compared for each eye, with special attention to reliability, test duration, and detection and quantification of neuro-ophthalmic visual field defects. We categorized the results into 1 of 9 groups based on similarities and reliabilities. Patient test preference was also assessed. <h3>Results</h3> Patients were separated into 2 groups, those with severe neurologic deficits (n = 50 eyes) and those with severe vision loss but mild neurologic dysfunction or none at all (n = 50 eyes). Overall, GVF and SITA Fast were equally reliable in 77% of eyes. Goldmann manual kinetic perimetry and SITA Fast showed similar visual field results in 75% of all eyes (70% of eyes of patients with severe neurologic deficits and 80% of eyes with poor vision). The mean ± SD duration per eye was 7.97 ± 3.2 minutes for GVF and 5.43 ± 1.41 minutes for SITA Fast (<i>P</i><.001). Ninety-one percent of patients preferred GVF to SITA Fast. <h3>Conclusions</h3> We found the SITA Fast strategy of automated perimetry to be useful in the detection, and accurate in the quantification of central visual field defects associated with neuro-ophthalmic disorders. Our results suggest that for the general ophthalmologist or neurologist, visual field testing with SITA Fast perimetry might even be preferable to GVF, especially if performed by a marginally trained technician, even in patients with severely decreased vision or who are neurologically disabled." @default.
• W2063765367 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2063765367 creator A5031361641 @default.
• W2063765367 creator A5061016538 @default.
• W2063765367 creator A5083457780 @default.
• W2063765367 date "2002-09-01" @default.
• W2063765367 modified "2023-10-11" @default.
• W2063765367 title "Can Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm Fast Perimetry Be Used as an Alternative to Goldmann Perimetry in Neuro-ophthalmic Practice?" @default.
• W2063765367 cites W154809504 @default.
• W2063765367 cites W1571984245 @default.
• W2063765367 cites W1969692783 @default.
• W2063765367 cites W1975226296 @default.
• W2063765367 cites W1979757907 @default.
• W2063765367 cites W198840941 @default.
• W2063765367 cites W1989377268 @default.
• W2063765367 cites W1991906117 @default.
• W2063765367 cites W1996336451 @default.
• W2063765367 cites W2010623722 @default.
• W2063765367 cites W2027832861 @default.
• W2063765367 cites W2038939234 @default.
• W2063765367 cites W2050099462 @default.
• W2063765367 cites W2053426776 @default.
• W2063765367 cites W2058371815 @default.
• W2063765367 cites W2067009489 @default.
• W2063765367 cites W2073925128 @default.
• W2063765367 cites W2081437097 @default.
• W2063765367 cites W2085578394 @default.
• W2063765367 cites W2093136156 @default.
• W2063765367 cites W2119273568 @default.
• W2063765367 cites W2140951658 @default.
• W2063765367 cites W2151486318 @default.
• W2063765367 cites W47467215 @default.
• W2063765367 doi "https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.120.9.1162" @default.
• W2063765367 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12215089" @default.
• W2063765367 hasPublicationYear "2002" @default.
• W2063765367 type Work @default.
• W2063765367 sameAs 2063765367 @default.
• W2063765367 citedByCount "39" @default.
• W2063765367 countsByYear W20637653672012 @default.
• W2063765367 countsByYear W20637653672013 @default.
• W2063765367 countsByYear W20637653672014 @default.
• W2063765367 countsByYear W20637653672015 @default.
• W2063765367 countsByYear W20637653672016 @default.
• W2063765367 countsByYear W20637653672018 @default.
• W2063765367 countsByYear W20637653672019 @default.
• W2063765367 countsByYear W20637653672020 @default.
• W2063765367 countsByYear W20637653672021 @default.
• W2063765367 countsByYear W20637653672022 @default.
• W2063765367 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2063765367 hasAuthorship W2063765367A5031361641 @default.
• W2063765367 hasAuthorship W2063765367A5061016538 @default.
• W2063765367 hasAuthorship W2063765367A5083457780 @default.
• W2063765367 hasConcept C118487528 @default.
• W2063765367 hasConcept C119767625 @default.
• W2063765367 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W2063765367 hasConcept C2776058522 @default.
• W2063765367 hasConcept C2778257484 @default.
• W2063765367 hasConcept C2778527774 @default.
• W2063765367 hasConcept C2781283680 @default.
• W2063765367 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2063765367 hasConcept C64731932 @default.
• W2063765367 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2063765367 hasConcept C88785568 @default.
• W2063765367 hasConceptScore W2063765367C118487528 @default.
• W2063765367 hasConceptScore W2063765367C119767625 @default.
• W2063765367 hasConceptScore W2063765367C154945302 @default.
• W2063765367 hasConceptScore W2063765367C2776058522 @default.
• W2063765367 hasConceptScore W2063765367C2778257484 @default.
• W2063765367 hasConceptScore W2063765367C2778527774 @default.
• W2063765367 hasConceptScore W2063765367C2781283680 @default.
• W2063765367 hasConceptScore W2063765367C41008148 @default.
• W2063765367 hasConceptScore W2063765367C64731932 @default.
• W2063765367 hasConceptScore W2063765367C71924100 @default.
• W2063765367 hasConceptScore W2063765367C88785568 @default.
• W2063765367 hasIssue "9" @default.
• W2063765367 hasLocation W20637653671 @default.
• W2063765367 hasLocation W20637653672 @default.
• W2063765367 hasOpenAccess W2063765367 @default.
• W2063765367 hasPrimaryLocation W20637653671 @default.
• W2063765367 hasRelatedWork W2019616934 @default.
• W2063765367 hasRelatedWork W2055804029 @default.
• W2063765367 hasRelatedWork W2058371815 @default.
• W2063765367 hasRelatedWork W2075211857 @default.
• W2063765367 hasRelatedWork W2155214832 @default.
• W2063765367 hasRelatedWork W2185387169 @default.
• W2063765367 hasRelatedWork W3028891078 @default.
• W2063765367 hasRelatedWork W3118655032 @default.
• W2063765367 hasRelatedWork W3137518859 @default.
• W2063765367 hasRelatedWork W77622534 @default.
• W2063765367 hasVolume "120" @default.
• W2063765367 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2063765367 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2063765367 magId "2063765367" @default.
• W2063765367 workType "article" @default.