Comparison of 10-2 Visual Field Using Melbourne Rapid Fields Online Perimetry and Humphrey Field Analyzer.

IF 2.6 3区医学 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY

Translational Vision Science & Technology Pub Date : 2025-09-02 DOI:10.1167/tvst.14.9.14

Kae Sugihara, Yu Xiang George Kong, Mitsuto Hosokawa, Toshio Okanouchi

{"title":"Comparison of 10-2 Visual Field Using Melbourne Rapid Fields Online Perimetry and Humphrey Field Analyzer.","authors":"Kae Sugihara, Yu Xiang George Kong, Mitsuto Hosokawa, Toshio Okanouchi","doi":"10.1167/tvst.14.9.14","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: Melbourne rapid fields (MRF) online perimetry is web-based software that allows white-on-white threshold perimetry using any computer. This study assesses the perimetric outcomes of MRF10-2 protocol via laptop computer in comparison to Humphrey field analyzer (HFA).Methods: This prospective and cross-sectional study included 91 eyes from 91 Japanese glaucoma patients. MRF10-2 visual field (VF) results were compared to HFA10-2 the Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA)-Standard, including mean deviation (MD), pattern deviation (PD), and reliability indexes. To assess test-retest reliability, patients completed two MRF assessments.Results: MRF demonstrated high level of agreement with HFA in evaluating MD (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.97 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.96-0.98]) and pattern standard deviation (PSD; ICC = 0.94 [95% CI, 0.92-0.96]). Bland-Altman analysis revealed a mean bias of -1.31 decibels (dB) (95% limits of agreement [LoA] = -7.21 dB, 4.59 dB) for MD and 0.71 dB (LoA = -3.55 dB, 4.97 dB) for PSD. It also demonstrated good MRF repeatability with a mean bias of 0.39 dB (LoA = -2.34 dB, 3.00 dB) for MD and -0.21 dB (LoA = -2.36 dB, 1.94 dB) for PSD. False-positives and -negatives were not statistically different between the two devices. MRF test time was significantly shorter than HFA (P < 0.001).Conclusions: MRF10-2 online perimetry offers portable approach for central VF assessment, but its measurements are not directly interchangeable with HFA and may exhibit higher variability, warranting caution in clinical interpretation.Translational relevance: The novel protocol of portable online perimetry approach will assess central VF defects when standard equipment is unavailable.","PeriodicalId":23322,"journal":{"name":"Translational Vision Science & Technology","volume":"14 9","pages":"14"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12429677/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Translational Vision Science & Technology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.14.9.14","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Melbourne rapid fields (MRF) online perimetry is web-based software that allows white-on-white threshold perimetry using any computer. This study assesses the perimetric outcomes of MRF10-2 protocol via laptop computer in comparison to Humphrey field analyzer (HFA).

Methods: This prospective and cross-sectional study included 91 eyes from 91 Japanese glaucoma patients. MRF10-2 visual field (VF) results were compared to HFA10-2 the Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA)-Standard, including mean deviation (MD), pattern deviation (PD), and reliability indexes. To assess test-retest reliability, patients completed two MRF assessments.

Results: MRF demonstrated high level of agreement with HFA in evaluating MD (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.97 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.96-0.98]) and pattern standard deviation (PSD; ICC = 0.94 [95% CI, 0.92-0.96]). Bland-Altman analysis revealed a mean bias of -1.31 decibels (dB) (95% limits of agreement [LoA] = -7.21 dB, 4.59 dB) for MD and 0.71 dB (LoA = -3.55 dB, 4.97 dB) for PSD. It also demonstrated good MRF repeatability with a mean bias of 0.39 dB (LoA = -2.34 dB, 3.00 dB) for MD and -0.21 dB (LoA = -2.36 dB, 1.94 dB) for PSD. False-positives and -negatives were not statistically different between the two devices. MRF test time was significantly shorter than HFA (P < 0.001).

Conclusions: MRF10-2 online perimetry offers portable approach for central VF assessment, but its measurements are not directly interchangeable with HFA and may exhibit higher variability, warranting caution in clinical interpretation.

Translational relevance: The novel protocol of portable online perimetry approach will assess central VF defects when standard equipment is unavailable.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

使用墨尔本快速视野在线视野测量与汉弗莱视野分析仪比较10-2视野。

目的：墨尔本快速场（MRF）在线视野测量是基于网络的软件，允许使用任何计算机进行白对白阈值视野测量。本研究通过笔记本电脑评估MRF10-2协议的周边结果，并与Humphrey现场分析仪（HFA）进行比较。方法：本前瞻性横断面研究纳入91例日本青光眼患者的91只眼。将MRF10-2的视野（VF）结果与瑞典交互式阈值算法（SITA）标准HFA10-2进行比较，包括平均偏差（MD）、模式偏差（PD）和可靠性指标。为了评估重测可靠性，患者完成了两次MRF评估。结果：MRF在评估MD（类内相关系数[ICC] = 0.97[95%可信区间{CI}， 0.96-0.98]）和模式标准差（PSD; ICC = 0.94 [95% CI, 0.92-0.96]）方面与HFA表现出高度一致。Bland-Altman分析显示，MD的平均偏差为-1.31分贝（95%一致限[LoA] = -7.21 dB, 4.59 dB）， PSD的平均偏差为0.71 dB （LoA = -3.55 dB, 4.97 dB）。它还显示出良好的MRF重复性，MD和PSD的平均偏差分别为0.39 dB （LoA = -2.34 dB, 3.00 dB）和-0.21 dB （LoA = -2.36 dB, 1.94 dB）。假阳性和阴性在两种设备之间无统计学差异。MRF检测时间明显短于HFA （P < 0.001）。结论：MRF10-2在线视野测量为中心VF评估提供了便携式方法，但其测量结果不能与HFA直接互换，并且可能表现出更高的可变性，在临床解释时需要谨慎。翻译相关性：当标准设备不可用时，便携式在线视野检查方法的新协议将评估中心VF缺陷。

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

Translational Vision Science & Technology Engineering-Biomedical Engineering

CiteScore

5.70

自引率

3.30%

发文量

346

审稿时长

25 weeks

期刊介绍： Translational Vision Science & Technology (TVST), an official journal of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO), an international organization whose purpose is to advance research worldwide into understanding the visual system and preventing, treating and curing its disorders, is an online, open access, peer-reviewed journal emphasizing multidisciplinary research that bridges the gap between basic research and clinical care. A highly qualified and diverse group of Associate Editors and Editorial Board Members is led by Editor-in-Chief Marco Zarbin, MD, PhD, FARVO. The journal covers a broad spectrum of work, including but not limited to: Applications of stem cell technology for regenerative medicine, Development of new animal models of human diseases, Tissue bioengineering, Chemical engineering to improve virus-based gene delivery, Nanotechnology for drug delivery, Design and synthesis of artificial extracellular matrices, Development of a true microsurgical operating environment, Refining data analysis algorithms to improve in vivo imaging technology, Results of Phase 1 clinical trials, Reverse translational ("bedside to bench") research. TVST seeks manuscripts from scientists and clinicians with diverse backgrounds ranging from basic chemistry to ophthalmic surgery that will advance or change the way we understand and/or treat vision-threatening diseases. TVST encourages the use of color, multimedia, hyperlinks, program code and other digital enhancements.