Switch to
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| lifeskim:mentions | |
| pubmed:issue |
4
|
| pubmed:dateCreated |
1983-5-27
|
| pubmed:abstractText |
We evaluated the perimetric concept and the technical construction of the Competer. The test procedures of the Competer are well conceived. The screening-strategy may fail in cases of central islands or large central defects. The interpretation of the visual field results is not easy, due to the use of a numerical print-out which, in addition, is different for screening and threshold examinations. The mechanical and electrical construction of the instrument could be improved. In the accompanying paper (Graniewski et al., 1982) results are presented of a comparative clinical evaluation.
|
| pubmed:language |
eng
|
| pubmed:journal | |
| pubmed:citationSubset |
IM
|
| pubmed:status |
MEDLINE
|
| pubmed:month |
Dec
|
| pubmed:issn |
0012-4486
|
| pubmed:author | |
| pubmed:issnType |
Print
|
| pubmed:day |
1
|
| pubmed:volume |
53
|
| pubmed:owner |
NLM
|
| pubmed:authorsComplete |
Y
|
| pubmed:pagination |
295-302
|
| pubmed:dateRevised |
2010-11-18
|
| pubmed:meshHeading | |
| pubmed:year |
1982
|
| pubmed:articleTitle |
The competer automatic campimeter I. Technical description and evaluation.
|
| pubmed:publicationType |
Journal Article,
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
|