Full correction of refractive errors during automated perimetry: does it really matter?
Aims: To study the effects of full correction of refractive errors on the reliability indices during automated perimetry.
Methods: In this retrospective study, records of all patients who underwent automated perimetry during June to July 2008 were reviewed. We compared the records of the patients who underwent automated perimetry without any refractive error correction or only partial correction of refractive errors (Group 1) with those having full correction of refractive errors (Group 2) during visual field testing. We analyzed whether full correction of the refractive errors during visual field testing improved the reliability indices (false-positive errors, false-negative errors, and fixation losses) of the visual fields.
Results: There was improvement in reliability indices after full correction of refractive errors, but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.3). Males showed better reliability than females (p = 0.07). Subjects aged 60 years or younger had more reliable fields (p = 0.02).
Conclusions: Imposing full refractive error correction as opposed to partial refractive error correction did not significantly alter the reliability of visual fields during automated perimetry.
How to Cite
The Journal has a fully Open Access policy and publishes all articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence. For any use other than that permitted by this license, written permission must be obtained from the Journal.