Joyce Tiang, Algis J Vingrys, Sarah Lin, Selwyn M Prea, Adam Ahmed Moktar, Allan Bank, Ashish Agar, Yu Xiang George Kong
{"title":"独立于设备的web-browser perimetry (Melbourne Rapid Fields-web)和SITA-Faster青光眼的多中心比较。","authors":"Joyce Tiang, Algis J Vingrys, Sarah Lin, Selwyn M Prea, Adam Ahmed Moktar, Allan Bank, Ashish Agar, Yu Xiang George Kong","doi":"10.3389/fopht.2025.1485950","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Visual field testing is important for glaucoma diagnosis and management, but access to standard automated perimetry can be limited in some areas due to cost or access. Melbourne Rapid Fields-web (MRF-web) perimeter is designed to address these limitations by allowing perimetry testing on the flat screen of your personal computer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study is a retrospective, cross-sectional study involving two locations in Australia, one in metropolitan Melbourne and one in rural Dubbo NSW. 232 patients with stable glaucoma, glaucoma suspect or normal eyes were tested with MRF-web and outcomes were compared to the most recent Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 24-2 SITA Faster test. Outcomes were compared by Deming regressions, Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patient age ranged from 21 to 92 (average 66.3, SD 16.1). Bland-Altman found a bias of -0.50dB for Mean Deviation (MD) between the two tests, with 95% Limits of Agreement (LoA) of -6.80dB to 5.80dB. Pattern Deviation (PD) had a bias of -0.58dB with 95% LoA of -5.60dB to 4.40dB. High concordance was found for MD and PD, with ICCs of 0.87 and 0.73. No significant differences were found in false positive and fixation loss rates. Test time was approximately one minute longer for MRF-web compared to SITA-Faster. Area Under the Curve of MRF and HFA are similar indicating comparable diagnostic capacity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>MRF-web produces outcomes comparable to HFA SITA-Faster. Its portability and cost-effectiveness suggest suitability as an alternative method for visual field testing where a standard perimeter is not easily accessible.</p>","PeriodicalId":73096,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in ophthalmology","volume":"5 ","pages":"1485950"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11840569/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Multi-centre comparison between device-independent web-browser perimetry (Melbourne Rapid Fields-web) and SITA-Faster for glaucoma.\",\"authors\":\"Joyce Tiang, Algis J Vingrys, Sarah Lin, Selwyn M Prea, Adam Ahmed Moktar, Allan Bank, Ashish Agar, Yu Xiang George Kong\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fopht.2025.1485950\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Visual field testing is important for glaucoma diagnosis and management, but access to standard automated perimetry can be limited in some areas due to cost or access. Melbourne Rapid Fields-web (MRF-web) perimeter is designed to address these limitations by allowing perimetry testing on the flat screen of your personal computer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study is a retrospective, cross-sectional study involving two locations in Australia, one in metropolitan Melbourne and one in rural Dubbo NSW. 232 patients with stable glaucoma, glaucoma suspect or normal eyes were tested with MRF-web and outcomes were compared to the most recent Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 24-2 SITA Faster test. Outcomes were compared by Deming regressions, Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patient age ranged from 21 to 92 (average 66.3, SD 16.1). Bland-Altman found a bias of -0.50dB for Mean Deviation (MD) between the two tests, with 95% Limits of Agreement (LoA) of -6.80dB to 5.80dB. Pattern Deviation (PD) had a bias of -0.58dB with 95% LoA of -5.60dB to 4.40dB. High concordance was found for MD and PD, with ICCs of 0.87 and 0.73. No significant differences were found in false positive and fixation loss rates. Test time was approximately one minute longer for MRF-web compared to SITA-Faster. Area Under the Curve of MRF and HFA are similar indicating comparable diagnostic capacity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>MRF-web produces outcomes comparable to HFA SITA-Faster. Its portability and cost-effectiveness suggest suitability as an alternative method for visual field testing where a standard perimeter is not easily accessible.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73096,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in ophthalmology\",\"volume\":\"5 \",\"pages\":\"1485950\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11840569/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in ophthalmology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fopht.2025.1485950\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fopht.2025.1485950","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
摘要
目的:视野测试对青光眼的诊断和治疗很重要,但由于成本或准入限制,在某些地区使用标准的自动视野检查可能受到限制。墨尔本快速场网(MRF-web)周界是为了解决这些限制而设计的,允许在您的个人电脑的平面屏幕上进行周界测试。方法:本研究是一项回顾性的横断面研究,涉及澳大利亚的两个地点,一个在墨尔本大都会,一个在新南威尔士州的杜波农村。对232例稳定型青光眼、疑似青光眼或正常眼患者进行mrf网测试,并将结果与最新的Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 24-2 SITA Faster测试进行比较。结果采用Deming回归、类内相关系数(ICC)和Bland-Altman方法进行比较。结果:患者年龄21 ~ 92岁,平均66.3岁,SD 16.1岁。Bland-Altman发现两个测试之间的平均偏差(MD)偏差为-0.50dB, 95%的一致限(LoA)为-6.80dB至5.80dB。模式偏差(PD)偏差为-0.58dB, 95% LoA为-5.60dB至4.40dB。MD和PD的一致性较高,ICCs分别为0.87和0.73。假阳性和固定物丢失率无显著差异。与SITA-Faster相比,MRF-web的测试时间大约长一分钟。mri和HFA曲线下面积相似,表明诊断能力相当。结论:MRF-web产生的结果与HFA相当-更快。它的可移植性和成本效益表明适合作为一个替代方法的视野测试,在一个标准的周长不容易接近。
Multi-centre comparison between device-independent web-browser perimetry (Melbourne Rapid Fields-web) and SITA-Faster for glaucoma.
Purpose: Visual field testing is important for glaucoma diagnosis and management, but access to standard automated perimetry can be limited in some areas due to cost or access. Melbourne Rapid Fields-web (MRF-web) perimeter is designed to address these limitations by allowing perimetry testing on the flat screen of your personal computer.
Methods: This study is a retrospective, cross-sectional study involving two locations in Australia, one in metropolitan Melbourne and one in rural Dubbo NSW. 232 patients with stable glaucoma, glaucoma suspect or normal eyes were tested with MRF-web and outcomes were compared to the most recent Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 24-2 SITA Faster test. Outcomes were compared by Deming regressions, Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman methods.
Results: Patient age ranged from 21 to 92 (average 66.3, SD 16.1). Bland-Altman found a bias of -0.50dB for Mean Deviation (MD) between the two tests, with 95% Limits of Agreement (LoA) of -6.80dB to 5.80dB. Pattern Deviation (PD) had a bias of -0.58dB with 95% LoA of -5.60dB to 4.40dB. High concordance was found for MD and PD, with ICCs of 0.87 and 0.73. No significant differences were found in false positive and fixation loss rates. Test time was approximately one minute longer for MRF-web compared to SITA-Faster. Area Under the Curve of MRF and HFA are similar indicating comparable diagnostic capacity.
Conclusion: MRF-web produces outcomes comparable to HFA SITA-Faster. Its portability and cost-effectiveness suggest suitability as an alternative method for visual field testing where a standard perimeter is not easily accessible.