Ebpay生命医药出版社

    • Ebpay生命

    100763

    论文已发表

    提 交 论 文


    注册即可获取Ebpay生命的最新动态

    注 册



    IF 收录期刊



    • 3.3 Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press)
    • 3.4 Clin Epidemiol
    • 2.5 Cancer Manag Res
    • 2.9 Infect Drug Resist
    • 3.5 Clin Interv Aging
    • 4.7 Drug Des Dev Ther
    • 2.7 Int J Chronic Obstr
    • 6.6 Int J Nanomed
    • 2.5 Int J Women's Health
    • 2.5 Neuropsych Dis Treat
    • 2.7 OncoTargets Ther
    • 2.0 Patient Prefer Adher
    • 2.3 Ther Clin Risk Manag
    • 2.5 J Pain Res
    • 2.8 Diabet Metab Synd Ob
    • 2.8 Psychol Res Behav Ma
    • 3.0 Nat Sci Sleep
    • 1.8 Pharmgenomics Pers Med
    • 2.7 Risk Manag Healthc Policy
    • 4.2 J Inflamm Res
    • 2.1 Int J Gen Med
    • 4.2 J Hepatocell Carcinoma
    • 3.7 J Asthma Allergy
    • 1.9 Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol
    • 2.7 J Multidiscip Healthc



    更多详情 >>





    视频

    Comparison of head-mounted perimeter (imo®) and Humphrey Field Analyzer

     

    Authors Kimura T, Matsumoto C, Nomoto H

    Received 15 October 2018

    Accepted for publication 24 January 2019

    Published 14 March 2019 Volume 2019:13 Pages 501—513

    DOI http://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S190995

    Checked for plagiarism Yes

    Review by Single-blind

    Peer reviewers approved by Dr Colin Mak

    Peer reviewer comments 2

    Editor who approved publication: Dr Scott Fraser

    Purpose: The head-mounted automated perimeter imo® is a new portable perimeter that does not require a dark room and can be used to examine patients in any setting. In this study, imo 24plus (1-2) AIZE examinations were compared with previous Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 30-2 (SITA standard) examinations within the same patient.
    Patients and methods: imo examinations (either head-mounted [i-H] or fixed [i-F] type) were performed in patients with glaucoma or suspected glaucoma who had already experienced HFA five or more times. Measurement time and correlations of mean deviation (MD) and visual field index (VFI) values were compared between groups for HFA, i-H, i-F, and imo total (i-T). Fixation loss (FL), false-positive (FP), and false-negative (FN) detection rates were compared. The percentage of binocular random single-eye tests under possible non-occlusion conditions using imo was determined. Mann–Whitney U test was performed, and Spearman’s rank-order correlation coefficient was calculated.
    Results: The inclusion period was July to December 2016. Among 273 subjects (543 eyes), 147 (292 eyes) were tested with i-H type and 126 (251 eyes) with i-F type. Mean MD values for HFA and i-T were −6.1±7.8 and −6.2±7.1 dB, respectively. Mean measurement times for HFA, i-H, i-F, and i-T were 15.23±2.07, 10.47±2.11, 11.04±2.31, and 10.54±2.19 minutes, respectively (P <0.01 for HFA vs i-H/i-F). Total mean measurement time was shorter by 30.8% for i-T vs HFA. Correlation coefficients of MD and VFI were R     2>0.81 for HFA vs i-H and i-F.. FP and FN detection rates were significantly higher with i-T than HFA; there was no significant difference in FL. Binocular random single-eye tests were possible in 85% of cases.
    Conclusion: imo reduced measurement time by 30.8%. imo VFI and MD values were highly correlated with HFA. As i-F and i-H types produced similar results, imo can be used in accordance with the patient’s situation.
    Keywords: visual field, glaucoma, automatic perimetry, mean deviation, visual field index, reliability index


     

    摘要视频链接：Imo 24plus AIZE


    Download Article[PDF]