A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Comparison of the TEMPO binocular perimeter and Humphrey field analyzer. | LitMetric

Comparison of the TEMPO binocular perimeter and Humphrey field analyzer.

Sci Rep

Hamilton Glaucoma Center, Shiley Eye Institute, and the Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology, University of California San Diego, 9500 Campus Point Drive, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0946, USA.

Published: December 2023

This study compared between TEMPO, a new binocular perimeter, with the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA). Patients were tested with both TEMPO 24-2 Ambient Interactive Zippy Estimated by Sequential Testing (AIZE)-Rapid and HFA 24-2 Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA)-Fast in a randomized sequence on the same day. Using a mixed-effects model, visual field (VF) parameters and reliability indices were compared. Retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness was measured using Cirrus optical coherence tomography (OCT), and coefficient of determinations for VF and OCT parameters were calculated and compared using Akaike information criteria. 740 eyes (including 68 healthy, 262 glaucoma suspects, and 410 glaucoma) of 370 participants were evaluated. No significant differences were seen in mean deviation and visual field index between the two perimeters (P > 0.05). A stronger association between VF mean sensitivity (dB or 1/L) and circumpapillary RNFL was found for TEMPO (adjusted R = 0.25; Akaike information criteria [AIC] = 5235.5 for dB, and adjusted R = 0.29; AIC = 5200.8 for 1/L, respectively) compared to HFA (adjusted R = 0.22; AIC = 5263.9 for dB, and adjusted R = 0.22; AIC = 5262.7 for 1/L, respectively). Measurement time was faster for TEMPO compared to HFA (261 s vs. 429 s, P < 0.001). Further investigations are needed to assess the long-term monitoring potential of this binocular VF test.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10692178PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-48105-5DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

tempo binocular
8
binocular perimeter
8
perimeter humphrey
8
humphrey field
8
field analyzer
8
visual field
8
akaike criteria
8
compared hfa
8
adjusted r = 022
8
compared
5

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!