Purchase this article with an account.
Yu Xiang George Kong, Mingguang He, Jonathan G. Crowston, Algis J. Vingrys; A Comparison of Perimetric Results from a Tablet Perimeter and Humphrey Field Analyzer in Glaucoma Patients. Trans. Vis. Sci. Tech. 2016;5(6):2. doi: 10.1167/tvst.5.6.2.
Download citation file:
© 2017 Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology.
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).
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.
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).
The perimetry results from the MRF have a strong correlation to the HFA outcomes. MRF also has test–retest reliability comparable to HFA.
Portable tablet perimetry may allow accurate assessment of visual field when standard perimetry machines are unavailable or unsuitable.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only