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.