This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

CLIFFORD B. WALKER

Arch Surg. 1929;18(4):1036-1048.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

Among the more important reasons for the retarded development of quantitative perimetry since the first principles were laid before the Tenth International Medical Congress by Bjerrum,¹ more than a third of a century ago, is the examinational time element. Twenty years slipped by before the work of Roenne² brought the subject really to the front, and still another ten years before enough material was assembled for such a book as Peters has presented on the subject, or as appears in Traquair's splendid "Introduction to Clinical Perimetry."³

It was not so clear to me that the time element was the real essence of the backwardness of the subject until about three or four years ago when I asked the chiefs of some of the larger clinics, as for instance, the Mayo Clinic, why the old method of perimetry was still used when the new quantitative method was known . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?