The effects of weighting the “mean defect” visual field index according to threshold variability in the central and midperipheral visual field

[1]  A Heijl,et al.  A clinical study of perimetric probability maps. , 1989, Archives of ophthalmology.

[2]  A Heijl,et al.  Visual field interpretation with empiric probability maps. , 1989, Archives of ophthalmology.

[3]  F. Fankhauser,et al.  Threshold fluctuations in the Humphrey Field Analyzer and in the Octopus automated perimeter. , 1988, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[4]  J Katz,et al.  Reliability indexes of automated perimetric tests. , 1988, Archives of ophthalmology.

[5]  G. Lindgren,et al.  Normal variability of static perimetric threshold values across the central visual field. , 1987, Archives of ophthalmology.

[6]  J Flammer,et al.  Quantification of glaucomatous visual field defects with automated perimetry. , 1985, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[7]  F. Fankhauser.  Problems related to the design of automatic perimeters , 1979, Documenta Ophthalmologica.

[8]  Josef Flammer,et al.  The concept of visual field indices , 2005, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.

[9]  F. Fankhauser,et al.  A comparison of the mean defect and mean deviation indices within the central 28 degrees of the glaucomatous visual field. , 1990, Japanese journal of ophthalmology.

[10]  C. Krakau.  Temporal summation and perimetry. , 1989, Ophthalmic research.

[11]  Georg Lindgren,et al.  A package for the statistical analysis of visual fields , 1987 .

[12]  A. Heijl,et al.  The Implications of the Results of Computerized Perimetry in Normals for the Statistical Evaluation of Glaucomatous Visual Fields , 1987 .