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 6months. 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 ± 0.1minutes vs SITA-fast 4.3 ± 0.2minutes vs SITA-standard 6.2 ± 0.1minutes, 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.
Submitted Version (
Free)
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call