Melbourne Rapid Fields Online Perimeter Home Visual Field Study for Glaucoma

IF 3.2 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY

Ophthalmology. Glaucoma Pub Date : 2026-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-11-17 DOI:10.1016/j.ogla.2025.10.008

George Y.X. Kong PhD, FRANZCO , Mohamed Dirani PhD, MBA , Joyce Tiang MOrthoptics , Selwyn M. Prea OD, PhD , Phillip Bedggood PhD , Algis J. Vingrys PhD

{"title":"Melbourne Rapid Fields Online Perimeter Home Visual Field Study for Glaucoma","authors":"George Y.X. Kong PhD, FRANZCO , Mohamed Dirani PhD, MBA , Joyce Tiang MOrthoptics , Selwyn M. Prea OD, PhD , Phillip Bedggood PhD , Algis J. Vingrys PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.ogla.2025.10.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To evaluate the reliability and concordance of visual field (VF) assessments conducted unsupervised at home using the web-browser-based Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) online perimetry system, in comparison with conventional supervised clinic-based Humphrey Field Analyzer Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA)-Faster (HFA-SFr) testing.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Prospective observational comparison study.</div></div><div><h3>Subjects/Participants</h3><div>Fifty-three glaucoma patients.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Fifty-three patients with glaucoma with prior experience using MRF platform were recruited. Participants completed bilateral 24-2 white-on-white automated perimetry tests at home using the MRF online system on their own personal computers. Humphrey Field Analyzer SITA-Faster results from the most recent clinic visits served as the comparator. Data from the first 3 months of home monitoring were analyzed in this study. Test–retest variability and agreement between MRF and HFA-SFr were analyzed using Bland–Altman plots and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Regional analysis was conducted using Garway-Heath structurally defined zones.</div></div><div><h3>Main Outcome Measures</h3><div>Mean deviation (MD), pattern deviation/pattern standard deviation (PD/PSD), test–retest variability, agreement between home-based MRF and clinic-based HFA-SFr, and regional visual field variability.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Participants comprised 19 preperimetric, 23 early, 6 moderate, and 5 advanced glaucoma cases. Visual field testing with MRF performed at home showed strong correlation for mean deviation (MD) values with HFA-SFr (ICC = 0.905) and moderate correlation for pattern deviation (PD)/pattern standard deviation (ICC = 0.685). Test–retest for MRF also showed strong correlation for MD (ICC = 0.983) and PD/pattern standard deviation (ICC = 0.947). Test–retest variability between MRF tests found a bias of –0.18 dB and 95% limits of agreement of (–2.97, 2.62 dB) for MD, and a bias of +0.21 dB and 95% limits of agreement of (–2.29, 2.68 dB) for PD. Zone-specific analysis showed that the temporal zone has a higher degree of test–retest variability compared with other zones.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Melbourne Rapid Fields online perimetry is a reliable and clinically valid tool for monitoring VF at home in glaucoma cases. Future study of a larger sample size and a more diverse cohort is required to assess its potential for teleophthalmology management of glaucoma and earlier detection of disease progression.</div></div><div><h3>Financial Disclosure(s)</h3><div>Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":19519,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmology. Glaucoma","volume":"9 2","pages":"Pages 185-192"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmology. Glaucoma","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589419625002406","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/11/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the reliability and concordance of visual field (VF) assessments conducted unsupervised at home using the web-browser-based Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) online perimetry system, in comparison with conventional supervised clinic-based Humphrey Field Analyzer Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA)-Faster (HFA-SFr) testing.

Design

Prospective observational comparison study.

Subjects/Participants

Fifty-three glaucoma patients.

Methods

Fifty-three patients with glaucoma with prior experience using MRF platform were recruited. Participants completed bilateral 24-2 white-on-white automated perimetry tests at home using the MRF online system on their own personal computers. Humphrey Field Analyzer SITA-Faster results from the most recent clinic visits served as the comparator. Data from the first 3 months of home monitoring were analyzed in this study. Test–retest variability and agreement between MRF and HFA-SFr were analyzed using Bland–Altman plots and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Regional analysis was conducted using Garway-Heath structurally defined zones.

Main Outcome Measures

Mean deviation (MD), pattern deviation/pattern standard deviation (PD/PSD), test–retest variability, agreement between home-based MRF and clinic-based HFA-SFr, and regional visual field variability.

Results

Participants comprised 19 preperimetric, 23 early, 6 moderate, and 5 advanced glaucoma cases. Visual field testing with MRF performed at home showed strong correlation for mean deviation (MD) values with HFA-SFr (ICC = 0.905) and moderate correlation for pattern deviation (PD)/pattern standard deviation (ICC = 0.685). Test–retest for MRF also showed strong correlation for MD (ICC = 0.983) and PD/pattern standard deviation (ICC = 0.947). Test–retest variability between MRF tests found a bias of –0.18 dB and 95% limits of agreement of (–2.97, 2.62 dB) for MD, and a bias of +0.21 dB and 95% limits of agreement of (–2.29, 2.68 dB) for PD. Zone-specific analysis showed that the temporal zone has a higher degree of test–retest variability compared with other zones.

Conclusions

Melbourne Rapid Fields online perimetry is a reliable and clinically valid tool for monitoring VF at home in glaucoma cases. Future study of a larger sample size and a more diverse cohort is required to assess its potential for teleophthalmology management of glaucoma and earlier detection of disease progression.

Financial Disclosure(s)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

查看原文本刊更多论文

墨尔本快速视野（MRF）在线周边家庭视野研究青光眼：3个月的结果。

目的：评估使用基于web浏览器的墨尔本快速视野（MRF）在线视野测量系统在家中进行的无监督视野（VF）评估的可靠性和一致性，并与传统的基于监督的临床Humphrey field Analyzer SITA-Faster （HFA-SFr）测试进行比较。方法：招募有MRF平台使用经验的青光眼患者53例。参与者在家中使用MRF在线系统在自己的个人电脑上完成了双边24-2白对白的自动视距测试。最近门诊就诊的HFA-SFr结果作为比较指标。本研究分析了前3个月的家庭监测数据。使用Bland-Altman图和类内相关系数（ICC）分析MRF和HFA-SFr之间的重测变异性和一致性。使用Garway-Heath构造定义带进行区域分析。结果：参与者包括19例围周前青光眼，23例早期青光眼，6例中度青光眼和5例晚期青光眼。在家中用MRF进行的VF测试显示，平均偏差（MD）值与HFA-SFr有很强的相关性（ICC= 0.905），模式偏差(PD)/模式标准差（PSD）有中等相关性（ICC=0.685）。重测MRF与MD （ICC = 0.983）和PD/PSD （ICC = 0.947）也有很强的相关性。MRF测试之间的反复测试差异发现，MD的偏差为-0.18 dB和95%的一致限（LoA）为（-2.97 dB, 2.62 dB）， PD的偏差为+0.21 dB和95% LoA （-2.29 dB, 2.68 dB）。区域特异性分析表明，与其他区域相比，时间区具有更高程度的测试-重测试变异性。结论：MRF在线透视是青光眼患者在家监测VF的一种可靠、有效的工具。未来的研究需要更大的样本量和更多样化的队列来评估其在青光眼的远眼治疗和早期发现疾病进展方面的潜力。

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