December 2002
Volume 43, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   December 2002
A Comparison of Variabilities
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • KR Woodward
    Veterans Administration Hospital and University of Iowa Iowa City IA
  • TE Sleep
    College of Medicine University of Iowa Iowa City IA
  • CF Brito
    Psychology Eastern Illinois University Charleston IL
  • M Wall
    Neurology and Ophthalmology
    Veterans Administration Hospital and University of Iowa Iowa City IA
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   K.R. Woodward, None; T.E. Sleep, None; C.F. Brito, None; M. Wall, None. Grant Identification: Support: VA Merit Review
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science December 2002, Vol.43, 2024. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      KR Woodward, TE Sleep, CF Brito, M Wall; A Comparison of Variabilities . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2002;43(13):2024.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Abstract: : Purpose: To investigate the retest variability of three types of perimetry in a group of normal subjects. Methods: Five ocular normal volunteers ages 26-74 (mean age: 42 ± 19.6) underwent testing using conventional automated perimetry stimulus sizes III and size V, and multifocal visual evoked potential perimetry (mfVEP) five times over a two-week period. Coefficients of variation (CV) were computed for each test and the results compared with a repeated measures ANOVA. The results were also analyzed by z-scores. Results: We found the CV's means and standard deviations to be: size III: 4.52% ± 0.60; size V: 3.29% ± 0.27; mfVEP 16.3% ± 3.02. The differences were statistically significant p < 0.001 except for the CV-III vs. CV-V. The z-score analysis gave similar results. We did not find an increase in variability with visual field eccentricity. Conclusion: The variability of conventional automated perimetry size III and V and the mfVEP are in the acceptable range with size V being the lowest.

Keywords: 511 perimetry • 393 electrophysiology: clinical 

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.