Some aspects of the comparative characteristics of different computerized perimetry methods

Cover Page


Purpose - to compare the ease of use, the comfort for persons to be tested, the examination rate, as well as the variability of repeated results obtained using four methods of computerized perimetry. Materials and methods. This clinical study included three groups of patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG). The 1st group included patients with OAG stage I, the 2nd group - with OAG stage II, the 3rd group - with OAG stage III. The control group included healthy individuals. All tested persons underwent examinations by 4 computerized methods (HFA II, Tomey AP-1000, Pericom, and the FDT-perimetry modification developed at the Ophthalmology Department of the Military Medical Academy). Results. FDT-perimetry appeared to be the shortest, easiest test and most comfortable for tested persons. Perimetry using Tomey AP-1000, Pericom and HFA II was more time-consuming and more difficult to perform. Repeated results of all four methods were better than the first one due to the “learning curve” effect, and showed different variability. Conclusion. To obtain reliable computerized perimetry results, taking into account the possible “learning curve” effect, we recommend repeating the perimetric test at least 2-3 times at same conditions. It is important for the selected perimetric test to be easy to perform, comfortable for persons to be tested, and quite fast to perform.

About the authors

Irina Leonidovna Simakova

S. M. Kirov Military Medical Academy

PhD, doctor of medical science, docent

Svetlana Anatol’yevna Serdyukova

S. M. Kirov Military Medical Academy



  1. Волков В. В. Прицельная периметрия важнейший метод диагностики глаукомы. Офтальмол. журн. 1979; 6: 331-4.
  2. Волков В. В. Как диагностировать и контролировать начальную открытоугольную глаукому. Глаукома. 2009; 2: 3-14.
  3. Волков В. В. О стандартах для оценки наличия, течения и лечения глаукомы по рекомендациям экспертов Международной ассоциации глаукомных обществ. Глаукома. 2012; 2: 60-6.
  4. Симакова И. Л., Волков В. В., Бойко Э. В., Клавдиев В. Е., Андреа К. Создание метода периметрии с удвоенной пространственной частотой за рубежом и в России. Глаукома. 2009; 2: 15-21.
  5. Симакова И. Л., Волков В. В., Бойко Э. В. Сравнение результатов разработанного метода периметрии с удвоенной пространственной частотой и оригинального метода FDT-периметрии.Глаукома. 2010; 1: 5-11.
  6. Стоянова Г. С., Егоров Е. А., Гуров А. С. Сравнительная характеристика кинетической и статической периметрии в стационарной и амбулаторной практике у больных глаукомой. Клин. офтальмол. 2002; 3 (4): 65-7.
  7. Castro D. P., Kawase J., Melo L. A. Learning effect of standard automated perimetry in healthy individuals. Arq. Bras. Oftalmol. 2008; 4 (71): 523-8.
  8. Johnson C. A., Adams C. W., R. A. Lewis R. A. Fatigue effects in automated perimetry. Appl. Opt. 1988; 27: 1030-7.
  9. Schiefer U., Pascual J. P., Edmunds B. et al. Comparison of the New Perimetric GATE Strategy with Conventional Full - Threshold and SITA Standard Strategies. Invest. Ophthal. Vis Sci. 2009; 50: 488-94.
  10. Weinreb R. N., Greve E. L. Reports and Consensus Statements of the 1st Global AIGS Consensus Meeting on Structure and Function in the Management of Glaucoma. 2003; 162.
  11. Weinreb R. N., Greve E. L. Progression of Glaucoma - Hague: Kugler Publications. 2011; 154.
  12. Wood J. M., Swann P. G. Visual fields in glaucoma: a clinical overview. Clin. Exp. Optom. 2000; 83 (3): 128-35.



Abstract - 498

PDF (Russian) - 445

PDF (English) - 132



Copyright (c) 2015 Simakova I.L., Serdyukova S.A.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies