Comparison of IMO vifa24plus(1-2) and Humphrey Field Analyzer 24-2.

Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) Pub Date : 2025-01-30 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/OPTH.S506059
Yuki Takagi, Ryo Asano, Kanna Yamashita, Yukihiro Sakai, Sho Yokoyama, Kei Ichikawa, Kazuo Ichikawa
{"title":"Comparison of IMO vifa24plus(1-2) and Humphrey Field Analyzer 24-2.","authors":"Yuki Takagi, Ryo Asano, Kanna Yamashita, Yukihiro Sakai, Sho Yokoyama, Kei Ichikawa, Kazuo Ichikawa","doi":"10.2147/OPTH.S506059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to compare the results of the IMO vifa 24plus(1-2) and HFA 24-2 visual field tests.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>We included 52 patients (104 eyes) with glaucoma who visited Chukyo Eye Clinic between June 2023 and March 2024. On the same day, the HFA 24-2 test using the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm Standard and the IMO vifa 24plus(1-2) test using the Ambient Interactive Zippy Estimated strategy were performed. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare fixation, false positives, false negatives, and total test time for both eyes between the HFA and IMO vifa tests. Only eyes with reliable test results were selected, and the visual field index (VFI), mean deviation (MD), and pattern standard deviation (PSD) were examined using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The test times for the HFA 24-2 and IMO vifa 24plus(1-2) were 716.83±118.80 and 628.75±142.70 s, respectively, with the IMO vifa being significantly shorter (P<0.001). For fixation, the results were 15.85±16.57% and 11.09±15.20%, with significantly better fixation in the IMO vifa (P<0.0001). False positives and negatives were 4.52±5.19 / 4.14±6.85% and 4.97±7.99 / 5.47±7.86%, respectively, with no significant differences, though the IMO vifa showed a slightly higher trend (P=0.980, 0.056). In eyes with reliable results, the HFA 24-2 and IMO vifa 24plus(1-2) outcomes were as follows: MD (-6.45±7.23, -6.85±7.35, P=0.724), PSD (7.13±4.75, 7.49±4.87, P=0.061), VFI (80.86±21.61, 80.86±21.74, P=0.644). The Spearman rank correlation coefficients between the HFA 24-2 and IMO vifa 24plus(1-2) were MD: 0.938, PSD: 0.949, VFI: 0.932 (all P<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The IMO vifa demonstrates a very high correlation with HFA and allows for a shorter examination time. Fixation errors are significantly improved compared to HFA, while there is no significant difference in false positives or false negatives.</p>","PeriodicalId":93945,"journal":{"name":"Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)","volume":"19 ","pages":"301-307"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11789514/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S506059","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the results of the IMO vifa 24plus(1-2) and HFA 24-2 visual field tests.

Patients and methods: We included 52 patients (104 eyes) with glaucoma who visited Chukyo Eye Clinic between June 2023 and March 2024. On the same day, the HFA 24-2 test using the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm Standard and the IMO vifa 24plus(1-2) test using the Ambient Interactive Zippy Estimated strategy were performed. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare fixation, false positives, false negatives, and total test time for both eyes between the HFA and IMO vifa tests. Only eyes with reliable test results were selected, and the visual field index (VFI), mean deviation (MD), and pattern standard deviation (PSD) were examined using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Results: The test times for the HFA 24-2 and IMO vifa 24plus(1-2) were 716.83±118.80 and 628.75±142.70 s, respectively, with the IMO vifa being significantly shorter (P<0.001). For fixation, the results were 15.85±16.57% and 11.09±15.20%, with significantly better fixation in the IMO vifa (P<0.0001). False positives and negatives were 4.52±5.19 / 4.14±6.85% and 4.97±7.99 / 5.47±7.86%, respectively, with no significant differences, though the IMO vifa showed a slightly higher trend (P=0.980, 0.056). In eyes with reliable results, the HFA 24-2 and IMO vifa 24plus(1-2) outcomes were as follows: MD (-6.45±7.23, -6.85±7.35, P=0.724), PSD (7.13±4.75, 7.49±4.87, P=0.061), VFI (80.86±21.61, 80.86±21.74, P=0.644). The Spearman rank correlation coefficients between the HFA 24-2 and IMO vifa 24plus(1-2) were MD: 0.938, PSD: 0.949, VFI: 0.932 (all P<0.001).

Conclusion: The IMO vifa demonstrates a very high correlation with HFA and allows for a shorter examination time. Fixation errors are significantly improved compared to HFA, while there is no significant difference in false positives or false negatives.

IMO vifa24plus(1-2)与Humphrey Field Analyzer 24-2的比较。
目的:本研究旨在比较IMO vifa 24 +(1-2)和HFA 24-2视野测试结果。患者和方法:我们纳入了2023年6月至2024年3月期间在Chukyo眼科诊所就诊的52例(104只眼)青光眼患者。同一天,使用瑞典交互式阈值算法标准进行HFA 24-2测试,使用Ambient交互式Zippy估计策略进行IMO vifa 24 +(1-2)测试。采用Wilcoxon符号秩检验比较HFA和IMO vifa试验的注视、假阳性、假阴性和双眼总检测时间。选取检验结果可靠的眼,采用Spearman等级相关系数和Wilcoxon符号秩检验检验视野指数(VFI)、平均偏差(MD)和模式标准差(PSD)。结果:HFA 24-2和IMO vifa 24 +(1-2)的检测时间分别为716.83±118.80 s和628.75±142.70 s,其中IMO vifa显著缩短(p)结论:IMO vifa与HFA的相关性非常高,可以缩短检测时间。与HFA相比,固定错误明显改善,而假阳性和假阴性无显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信