advertisement

HaagStreit

Abstract #70552 Published in IGR 18-2

A Comparison of Perimetric Results from a Tablet Perimeter and Humphrey Field Analyzer in Glaucoma Patients

Kong YX; He M; Crowston JG; Vingrys AJ
Translational vision science & technology 2016; 5: 2

See also comment(s) by Yvonne Buys


PURPOSE: To determine the correlation between the perimetric outcomes from perimetry software Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) run on an Apple iPad tablet and those from the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA). METHODS: The MRF software was designed with features including variable fixation and fast thresholding using Bayes logic. Here, we report a cross-sectional study on 90 eyes from 90 participants: 12 had normal optic nerves and 78 had glaucoma with various degrees of visual field loss (41 mild and 37 moderate-severe). Exclusion criteria were patients with worse than 20/40 vision or recent intraocular surgery. The visual field outcomes of MRF were compared against those returned from the HFA 24-2 SITA standard. Participants were tested twice on the MRF to establish test-retest repeatability. RESULTS: The test durations were shorter on MRF than HFA (5.7 ± 0.1 vs. 6.3 ± 0.1 minutes, P < 0.001). MRF showed a high level of concordance in its outcomes with HFA (intraclass coefficient [ICC] = 0.93 for mean defect [MD] and 0.86 for pattern deviation [PD]) although the MRF tended to give a less negative MD (1.4 dB bias) compared with the HFA. MRF also showed levels of test-retest reliability comparable to HFA (ICC = 0.93 for MD and 0.89 for PD, 95% limits of agreement -4.5 to 4.3 dB). CONCLUSION: The perimetry results from the MRF have a strong correlation to the HFA outcomes. MRF also has test-retest reliability comparable to HFA. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: Portable tablet perimetry may allow accurate assessment of visual field when standard perimetry machines are unavailable or unsuitable.

Centre of Eye Research Australia, Department of Ophthalmology, The University of Melbourne, East Melbourne, Australia ; Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Australia.

Full article

Classification:

6.6.2 Automated (Part of: 6 Clinical examination methods > 6.6 Visual field examination and other visual function tests)
6.6.3 Special methods (e.g. color, contrast, SWAP etc.) (Part of: 6 Clinical examination methods > 6.6 Visual field examination and other visual function tests)



Issue 18-2

Select Issue


advertisement

WGC-2021