A comparison of Goldmann and Humphrey automated perimetry in patients with glaucoma

SUMMARY Humphrey automated threshold perimetry (Program 30-2) was performed on 42 eyes of 25 patients with glaucoma to determine both the sensitivity and specificity of automated perimetry in detecting glaucomatous visual field defects. Automated perimetry sensitivity was 90-38%, while automated perimetry specificity was 91%. Fifty-two patients and a technician took part in a survey to determine their preference for either test. Patients generally preferred having Goldmann perimetry. The technician favoured Humphrey automated perimetry. Program 30-2 on the automated perimeter took 25 % longer to perform than Goldmann perimetry. There are a number of automated perimeters on the market. These computerised perimeters all perform visual field tests using preprogrammed and/or pro-grammable test logics. Some of these perimeters can determine retinal threshold sensitivity, and their performance in patients with glaucoma has been favourably compared to that of standard, manual perimetry (Fig. 1).&apos