
Fifteen children aged less than 11 years, affected by congenital glaucoma, underwent visual field testing using two different methods: conventional computerized perimetry (24-2 Humphrey program) and High Pass Resolution perimetry (Ring test). The aim of the study was to discover which of the two perimetric techniques was more suitable for younger patient. Results showed that HPR perimetry is more suitable to children. Reasons include the short duration of the test (5 min), and the appearance like a pleasant game to 80% of the subjects tested. In addition it proved to be better than Humphrey test because of the minimal possibilities of memorisation with a reproducibility factor of 68% in our sample and because of the reliable results and satisfactory evaluation in 76% of the eyes examined.
Surveys and Questionnaires, automated perimetry; children; congenital glaucoma; high-pass perimetry; visual field, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Visual Field Tests, False Positive Reactions, Glaucoma, Visual Fields, Child, Intraocular Pressure
Surveys and Questionnaires, automated perimetry; children; congenital glaucoma; high-pass perimetry; visual field, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Visual Field Tests, False Positive Reactions, Glaucoma, Visual Fields, Child, Intraocular Pressure
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 18 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
