A comparison of peritest automated perimetry and goldmann perimetry

Mary L. Hotchkiss, Alan L. Robin, Harry A. Quigley, Irvin P. Pollack

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

21 Scopus citations


Both Peritest perimetry and Goldmann visual field testing were performed on three groups of eyes. Eighty-one eyes had glaucoma with elevated intraocular pressures and abnormal visual fields determined by Goldmann perimetry. There were 47 eyes with suspected glaucoma, based on elevated IOPs and normal Goldmann visual fields. Nineteen eyes were normal. All visual fields were evaluated in masked fashion, and the results were compared. The Peritest had a high sensitivity in both glaucomatous (98.8%) and normal (94.7%) eyes. One half of the eyes with suspected glaucoma had abnormal Peritest results but normal Goldmann visual fields. These eyes were examined prospectively with color stereo discs and monochromatic nerve fiber layer photographs. One half of the eyes with suspected glaucoma and abnormal Peritest results also had photographic evidence suggesting optic nerve damage. Thus, early field defects detected by the Peritest perimeter in eyes with suspected glaucoma are likely to be representative of glaucomatous damage.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)397-403
Number of pages7
JournalArchives of ophthalmology
Issue number3
StatePublished - Mar 1985

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology


Dive into the research topics of 'A comparison of peritest automated perimetry and goldmann perimetry'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this