visual field testing with a new automated perimeter, the Humphrey Field Analyzer, and the Goldmann perimeter. Ophthalmology 1985;92:77-82. 11. Wong AM, Sharpe JA. A comparison of tangent screen, gold- mann, and humphrey perimetry in the detection and local- ization of occipital lesions. Ophthalmology 2000;107:527-44. 12. Bengtsson B, Olsson J, Heijl A, Rootzén H. A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry, SITA. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1997;75:368-75. 13. Thomas R, Shenoy K, Seshadri MS, et al. Visual field defects in non-functioning pituitary adenomas. Indian J Ophthalmol 2002;50:127-30. 14. Levy MJ, Jäger HR, Powell M, et al. Pituitary volume and headache: size is not everything. Arch Neurol 2004;61:721-5. 15. Miller NR, Walsh FB, Hoyt WF. Walsh and Hoyt's clinical neuro-ophthalmology. 6th ed. Baltimore: Lipponcott Williams & Wilkins; 2005. p. 503-73. 16. Hershenfeld SA, Sharpe JA. Monocular temporal hemianopia. Br J Ophthalmol 1993;77:424-7. 17. Nishimura M, Kurimoto T, Yamagata Y, et al. Giant pituitary adenoma manifesting as homonymous hemianopia. Jpn J Ophthalmol 2007;51:151-3. 18. Katz J, Tielsch JM, Quigley HA, Sommer A. Automated peri- metry detects visual field loss before manual Goldmann perimetry. Ophthalmology 1995;102:21-6. JP Lee, et al. Visual Field of Pituitary Macroadenoma 19. Trope GE, Britton R. A comparison of Goldmann and Humphrey automated perimetry in patients with glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 1987;71:489-93. 20. Szatmáry G, Biousse V, Newman NJ. Can Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm fast perimetry be used as an alternative to goldmann perimetry in neuro-ophthalmic practice? Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120:1162-73. 21. Gedik S, Gur S, Atalay B, et al. Humphrey visual field analy- sis, visual field defects, and ophthalmic findings in patients with macro pituitary adenoma. Saudi Med J 2007;28:1380-4. 22. Stewart WC, Hunt HH. Threshold variation in automated perimetry. Surv Ophthalmol 1993;37:353-61. 23. Heijl A, Drance SM. Changes in differential threshold in patients with glaucoma during prolonged perimetry. Br J Ophthalmol 1983;67:512-6. 24. Bengtsson B, Heijl A, Olsson J. Evaluation of a new threshold visual field strategy, SITA, in normal subjects. Swedish inter- active thresholding algorithm. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1998; 76:165-9. 25. Sekhar GC, Naduvilath TJ, Lakkai M, et al. Sensitivity of Swedish interactive threshold algorithm compared with stand- ard full threshold algorithm in Humphrey visual field testing. Ophthalmology 2000;107:1303-8. 26. Budenz DL. Atlas of visual fields. Philadelphia: Lippincott- Raven; 1997. p. 1-77. 41