New computerized analytical visual fields programs have been developed to assist doctors in making acurete diagnoses. In the study two such programed instruments were compared to 3 experienced doctors' analyses. The Humphrey 30-2 with Statpac II Hemifield Analyis and the 0 c to smart Pro g rem for the 0 c tops G- 1 vi sue 1 f i e 1 d . A total of 31 eyes were tested. They were divided into 3 groups: glaucomatous, ocular hypertensive end control. Statistical analysis was performed to determine inter rater reliability and doctor/program variability. Degree of doctor familiarity with each instrument appeared to influence the results. This is probably due to greeter exposure to the Humphrey's Visual Field Analyzer. When Humphrey's Hemifield analysis was compared to the average doctors' rating, the Hemfield rated the field as less pathological 75% of the time. In contrast, when the Ocopus Octosmart was compared to the average doctor's rating, the Octosmart rated the field es more pathological 81.8% of the time. When the Octosmart was compared to the Hemifield, the Otosmart rated the fields more pathological 76.9% of the time. The inclusion of patient profile data did indeed affects the final outcome of the doctors' analyses.
Files are restricted to Pacific University. Sign in to view.