Comparative Analysis of Melbourne Rapid Fields Web-Browser Perimeter and Humphrey Field Analyzer in Chinese Glaucoma Patients.

PURPOSE

This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and practicality of the Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) web-browser based perimeter software, compared to the conventional Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 24-2 Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) Standard Protocol in a hospital environment in China.

METHODS

The study was conducted in a clinical practice setting from December 2023 to August 2024. A total of 113 Chinese speaking participants were enrolled, with 91 eyes from 91 patients included in the analysis. Participants underwent visual field (VF) testing using both HFA and MRF. MRF was conducted with computer audio guidance in Chinese. The primary outcome measures included mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), test duration, and reliability indicators.

RESULTS

MRF returned a significant correlation with HFA for MD (Intraclass Correlation Coefficients [ICC] = 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.82-0.95) and PSD (ICC = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.82-0.92). The average test duration was notably shorter for MRF (266 ± 41 seconds) compared to HFA (385 ± 83 seconds, P < 0.001). Bland-Altman analysis revealed a mean bias of -1.8 decibels (dB) for MD and 0.4 dB for PSD (HFA-MRF). Additionally, MRF demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity, achieving an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.92 and 0.93 for MD and PSD, respectively. Furthermore, MRF found fewer false positive results.

CONCLUSIONS

MRF offers a reliable, efficient, and patient-friendly alternative to traditional VF testing for Chinese patients. Its implementation could substantially improve access to glaucoma care, especially in underserved regions and for patients unable to attend regular clinic appointments.

TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE

MRF enables accessible, efficient glaucoma care, offering a reliable alternative to HFA, particularly for underserved Chinese populations.