Previous issues

Abstract

To establish the medium-term repeatability of the iPad perimetry app Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) compared to Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 24-2 SITA-standard and SITA-fast programs.Multicenter longitudinal observational clinical study.Sixty patients (stable glaucoma/ocular hypertension/glaucoma suspects) were recruited into a 6-month longitudinal clinical study with visits planned at baseline and at 2, 4, and 6 months. At each visit patients undertook visual field assessment using the MRF perimetry application and either HFA SITA-fast (n = 21) or SITA-standard (n = 39). The primary outcome measure was the association and repeatability of mean deviation (MD) for the MRF and HFA tests. Secondary measures were the point-wise threshold and repeatability for each test, as well as test time.MRF was similar to SITA-fast in speed and significantly faster than SITA-standard (MRF 4.6 ± 0.1 minutes vs SITA-fast 4.3 ± 0.2 minutes vs SITA-standard 6.2 ± 0.1 minutes, P < .001). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) between MRF and SITA-fast for MD at the 4 visits ranged from 0.71 to 0.88. ICC values between MRF and SITA-standard for MD ranged from 0.81 to 0.90. Repeatability of MRF MD outcomes was excellent, with ICC for baseline and the 6-month visit being 0.98 (95% confidence interval: 0.96-0.99). In comparison, ICC at 6-month retest for SITA-fast was 0.95 and SITA-standard 0.93. Fewer points changed with the MRF, although for those that did, the MRF gave greater point-wise variability than did the SITA tests.MRF correlated strongly with HFA across 4 visits over a 6-month period, and has good test-retest reliability. MRF is suitable for monitoring visual fields in settings where conventional perimetry is not readily accessible.