Asman P, Fingeret M
Department of Ophthalmology, Malmö University Hospital, Sweden.
J Am Optom Assoc. 1997 Dec;68(12):763-8.
The Humphrey perimeter and its Statpac (analysis programs have been widely used and studied. Another statistical analysis program, FieldView, is used with the Dicon perimeter. The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of the two perimeters and their statistical analysis packages.
Twenty-three normal subjects (age range, 27 to 83 years) and 31 patients with glaucoma or cerebrovascular disease (age range, 28 to 87 years) experienced in automated perimetry were examined using the Dicon and the Humphrey perimeters.
The total number of significant points identified on the Humphrey total deviation probability maps was in close agreement with statistical expectations, while the Dicon total deviation probability maps yielded significantly more false-positive defects than expected for normals. Fixation loss ratios were almost twice as high with the Dicon perimeter (mean, 16%) as compared with the Humphrey perimeter (mean, 9%). The Humphrey perimeter was more reliable than the Dicon in measuring the defect depth of the physiological blind spot.
The Dicon perimeter appears to yield excessive false-positive findings in normal subjects, resulting in poor sensitivity/specificity combinations, while at the same time failing to properly measure defect depth in scotomas.
Humphrey视野计及其Statpac分析程序已被广泛使用和研究。另一种统计分析程序FieldView与Dicon视野计一起使用。本研究的目的是比较这两种视野计及其统计分析软件包的诊断性能。
对23名正常受试者（年龄范围27至83岁）和31名患有青光眼或脑血管疾病的患者（年龄范围28至87岁）进行自动视野检查，使用Dicon和Humphrey视野计。
Humphrey总偏差概率图上识别出的显著点数与统计预期密切一致，而Dicon总偏差概率图产生的假阳性缺陷明显多于正常预期。Dicon视野计的固视丢失率几乎是Humphrey视野计（平均9%）的两倍（平均16%）。在测量生理盲点的缺损深度方面，Humphrey视野计比Dicon更可靠。
Dicon视野计在正常受试者中似乎产生过多的假阳性结果，导致敏感性/特异性组合不佳，同时在测量暗点的缺损深度时未能正确测量。
