Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of bmcophtBioMed Centralsearchsubmit a manuscriptregisterthis articleBMC Ophthalmology
BMC Ophthalmol. 2012; 12: 35.
Published online 2012 August 2. doi:  10.1186/1471-2415-12-35
PMCID: PMC3479058

Comparison of the monocular Humphrey visual field and the binocular Humphrey esterman visual field test for driver licensing in glaucoma subjects in Sweden



The purpose of this study was to compare the monocular Humphrey Visual Field (HVF) with the binocular Humphrey Esterman Visual Field (HEVF) for determining whether subjects suffering from glaucoma fulfilled the new medical requirements for possession of a Swedish driver’s license.


HVF SITA Fast 24–2 full threshold (monocularly) and HEVF (binocularly) were performed consecutively on the same day on 40 subjects with glaucomatous damage of varying degrees in both eyes. Assessment of results was constituted as either “pass” or “fail”, according to the new medical requirements put into effect September 1, 2010 by the Swedish Transport Agency.


Forty subjects were recruited and participated in the study. Sixteen subjects passed both tests, and sixteen subjects failed both tests. Eight subjects passed the HEFV but failed the HVF. There was a significant difference between HEVF and HVF (χ2, p = 0.004). There were no subjects who passed the HVF, but failed the HEVF.


The monocular visual field test (HVF) gave more specific information about the location and depth of the defects, and therefore is the overwhelming method of choice for use in diagnostics. The binocular visual field test (HEVF) seems not be as efficient as the HVF in finding visual field defects in glaucoma subjects, and is therefore doubtful in evaluating visual capabilities in traffic situations.

Keywords: Visual fields, Glaucoma, Driving fitness

Articles from BMC Ophthalmology are provided here courtesy of BioMed Central