Kae Sugihara, Yu Xiang George Kong, Mitsuto Hosokawa, Toshio Okanouchi
{"title":"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。","authors":"Kae Sugihara, Yu Xiang George Kong, Mitsuto Hosokawa, Toshio Okanouchi","doi":"10.1167/tvst.14.9.14","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Translational relevance: </strong>The novel protocol of portable online perimetry approach will assess central VF defects when standard equipment is unavailable.</p>","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":"{\"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\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Translational relevance: </strong>The novel protocol of portable online perimetry approach will assess central VF defects when standard equipment is unavailable.</p>\",\"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}","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}
Comparison of 10-2 Visual Field Using Melbourne Rapid Fields Online Perimetry and Humphrey Field Analyzer.
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.
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
