Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Aug 22:2020:8384509.
doi: 10.1155/2020/8384509. eCollection 2020.

Comparison of Perimetric Outcomes from Melbourne Rapid Fields Tablet Perimeter Software and Humphrey Field Analyzer in Glaucoma Patients

Harsh Kumar  1 , Mithun Thulasidas  1
Affiliations

Comparison of Perimetric Outcomes from Melbourne Rapid Fields Tablet Perimeter Software and Humphrey Field Analyzer in Glaucoma Patients

Harsh Kumar et al. J Ophthalmol. .

Abstract

Purpose: To compare visual field results obtained using Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) iPad-based perimeter software and Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 24-2 Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) standard program in glaucoma patients.

Design: A cross-sectional observational study.

Methods: In this single-centre study involving patients diagnosed with glaucoma, the perimetric outcomes of MRF were compared against those returned from the HFA 24-2 SITA standard. Outcomes included mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), visual field index (VFI)/visual capacity (VC), foveal threshold, test time, number of points depressed at P < 5% on PSD probability plot, and glaucoma hemifield test/color coded indicator.

Results: The study included 28 eyes of 28 glaucoma patients. Mean (standard deviation) test times were 342.07 (56.70) seconds for MRF and 375.11 (88.95) for HFA 24-2 SITA standard (P=0.046). Mean MD was significantly lower for MRF (Δ = 3.09, P < 0.001), and mean PSD was significantly higher for MRF (Δ = 1.40, P=0.005) compared with HFA. The mean foveal threshold for the MRF was significantly lower than the mean HFA foveal threshold ((Δ = 9.25, P < 0.001). The number of points depressed at P < 5% on the PSD probability plot was significantly less for MRF (P < 0.001). Other perimetric outcomes showed no significant differences between both. Bland-Altman plots showed that considerable variability existed between the programs.

Conclusion: MRF is a good cost-effective, time-saving, user-friendly tool for monitoring visual fields in settings where access to traditional perimetry is limited. The lack of Internet strength in rural areas and questionable detection of early cases may be two points in MRF fields requiring an upgrade.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Nine zones with 66 test spots for the Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) full test and 54 test spots for the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 24-2 grid.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Fixation changes during Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) testing (for 9.7″, 10.5″, and 11″ iPads).
Figure 3
Figure 3
The iPad-keyboard-viewing-shield apparatus with a headrest maintaining 33 cm viewing distance for Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) testing.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Visual field output for Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) full test.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Bland–Altman plots showing agreement in (a) mean deviation (MD), (b) pattern standard deviation (PSD), (c) visual field index (VFI)/visual capacity (VC), and (d) the number of depressed points with P < 5% on PSD probability plot between Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 24-2 Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) Standard and Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Tham Y.-C., Li X., Wong T. Y., Quigley H. A., Aung T., Cheng C.-Y. Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(11):2081–2090. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.05.013. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Russell R. A., Crabb D. P., Malik R., Garway-Heath D. F. The relationship between variability and sensitivity in large-scale longitudinal visual field data. Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science. 2012;53(10):5985–5990. doi: 10.1167/iovs.12-10428. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Henson D. B., Chaudry S., Artes P. H., Faragher E. B., Ansons A. Response variability in the visual field: comparison of optic neuritis, glaucoma, ocular hypertension, and normal eyes. Investigative Ophthalmology &amp; Visual Science. 2000;41(2):417–421. - PubMed
    1. Li M., Zheng B., Wang Q., et al. Impact of visual field testing on intraocular pressure change trends in healthy people and glaucoma patients. Journal of Ophthalmology. 2020;2020:6. doi: 10.1155/2020/7936205.7936205 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ni N., Tsai J. C., Shields M. B., Loewen N. A. Elevation of intraocular pressure in glaucoma patients after automated visual field testing. Journal of Glaucoma. 2012;21(9):590–595. doi: 10.1097/ijg.0b013e318220db03. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources