Gramer E, Pröll M, Krieglstein G K
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 1980 Mar;176(3):374-84. doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1057464.
Under controlled conditions the differences between duplicated examinations with the Goldmann kinetic perimeter and the Krakau/Heijl static computerized perimeter were evaluated. Kinetic visual fields were obtained independently by two well trained examiners and duplicate examinations were performed by computer perimetry. The differences between the two examinations were statistically evaluated using quantitative criteria. The agreement between first and second examination--based on normal and pathologic findings--was 72% for the Goldmann and 88% for the computer perimeter. The greater reproducibility of central visual field testing with the computer perimeter is most probably due to the subjectivity of the observer in the kinetic manual technique. The computer obviously represents a standardized observer using a constant strategy with a fixed time course. The computerized perimeter was easy to operate and did not require a specially trained technician. All the patients in whom kinetic visual field testing was possible were able to undergo computerized perimetry.
在可控条件下，对使用戈德曼动态视野计和克拉考/海伊尔静态计算机视野计进行的重复检查之间的差异进行了评估。动态视野由两名训练有素的检查者独立获取，重复检查通过计算机视野检查法进行。使用定量标准对两次检查之间的差异进行了统计学评估。基于正常和病理结果，第一次和第二次检查之间的一致性，戈德曼视野计为72%，计算机视野计为88%。计算机视野计进行中央视野测试具有更高的可重复性，这很可能是由于动态手动技术中观察者的主观性。计算机显然代表了一个使用固定策略和固定时间进程的标准化观察者。计算机视野计易于操作，不需要专门训练的技术人员。所有能够进行动态视野测试的患者都能够接受计算机视野检查。
