AGREEMENT OF MELBOURNE RAPID FIELDS PERIMETRY PARAMETERS TO HUMPHREY FIELD ANALYZER IN MODERATE-SEVERE GLAUCOMA PATIENTS: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VISUAL ACUITY AND MELBOURNE RAPID FIELDS ACCURACY Oral Presentation - Observational Study - Resident
Article Sidebar
-
Melbourne Rapid Fields, agreement of tablet perimetry and Humphrey outcomes, visual acuity and perimetry results in glaucoma
Abstract
Introduction & Objectives
Perimetric examination is vital for measuring visual field defects and predicting the progression of
glaucoma. The Covid-19 pandemic prompted the use of perimetry at home. Tablet or website-based
perimetry becomes an option due to unavailability of Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA). Melbourne
Rapid Fields (MRF) is affordable, portable and reliable, even provide the same benefits as HFA. This
study aimed to assess the agreement of MRF results to HFA in moderate-severe glaucoma patients
with impaired visual acuity.
Methods
Observational study using a cross-sectional design to assess the relationship between visual acuity
and the agreement of MRF vs HFA in moderate-severe glaucoma patients. Subjects were grouped
into two groups based on visual acuity. Each subject was examined with MRF and HFA, the order of
examination was randomized using block randomization.
Results
The test durations were shorter on MRF than HFA (265.7±26.6 vs 384.4±46.7, P<0.001). There was
no significant difference in the reliability index of the two perimetry. MRF showed a high level of
concordance in its outcomes with HFA (R=0.931, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)=0.957 for
mean defect (MD) and R=0.941, ICC=0.974 for Visual Field Index (VFI)). MRF also showed levels of
test-retest repeatability comparable to HFA (R=0.948, ICC=0.989 for MD and R=0.946, ICC=0.989
for Visual Capacity (VC)). There was no correlation between visual acuity and MRF accuracy,
p>0.05.
Conclusion
The perimetry results from MRF have a very stong correlation to the HFA outcomes. MRF also has
test-retest repeatability comparable to HFA. The accuracy of the MRF results does not correlate with
visual acuity.
Full text article
References
Stamper, R.L, Lieberman, M.F, Drake M. Becker-Shaffer’s Diagnosis and Therapy of The Glaucomas. 8th ed. New York: Mosby Elsevier; 2009.
Staff AA of O. Basic and Clinical Science Course 2020-2021 Glaucoma. 2020th ed. Tanna, A.p, Boland, M.V, Giaconi, J.A, Krishnan, C. Lin, S.c, Medeiros, F.A, Moroi, S.E, Sit A., editor. San Fransisco: American Academy of Ophthalmology; 2020. 59–89 p.
Allingham RR. Shields’ Textbook of Glaucoma, 6th edition. Clin Exp Optom. 2012;95(2):250–250.
Tham YC, Li X, Wong TY, Quigley HA, Aung T, Cheng CY. Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology [Internet]. 2014;121(11):2081–90.
Scuderi G, Fragiotta S, Scuderi L, Iodice CM, Perdicchi A. Ganglion cell complex analysis in glaucoma patients: What can it tell us? Eye Brain. 2020;12:33–44.
Susanna Jr. R, Vessani RM. Staging Glaucoma Patient: Why and How? Open Ophthalmol J. 2009;3(2):59–64.
Bosworth CF, Sample PA, Johnson CA, Weinreb RN. Current practice with standard automated perimetry. Semin Ophthalmol. 2000;15(4):172–81.
Valente C, D’Alessandro E, Iester M. Classification and Statistical Trend Analysis in Detecting Glaucomatous Visual Field Progression. J Ophthalmol. 2019;2019.
Spofforth J, Codina C, Bjerre A. Is the ‘Visual Fields Easy’ Application a Useful Tool to Identify Visual Field Defects in Patients Who Have Suffered a Stroke? Ophthalmol Res An Int J. 2017;7(1):110.
Kassam F, Yogesan K, Sogbesan E, Pasquale LR, Damji KF. Teleglaucoma: Improving access and efficiency for glaucoma care. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2013;20(2):142–9.
Saleem SM, Pasquale LR, Sidoti PA, Tsai JC. Virtual Ophthalmology: Telemedicine in a COVID-19 Era. Am J Ophthalmol [Internet]. 2020;216(May):237–42.
PERDAMI. Panduan Pelayanan Mata Era Pandemik COVID-19 & Adaptasi Kebiasaan Baru. 2021.
Santos A, Morabe E. “VisualFields Easy”: an iPad Application as a Simple Tool for Detecting Visual Field Defects. Philipp J Ophthalmol [Internet]. 2016;22–6.
Black JM, Jacobs RJ, Phillips G, Chen L, Tan E, Tran A, et al. An assessment of the iPad as a testing platform for distance visual acuity in adults. BMJ Open. 2013;3(6):5–7.
Wu Z, Guymer RH, Jung CJ, Goh JK, Ayton LN, Luu CD, et al. Measurement of retinal sensitivity on tablet devices in age-related macular degeneration. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2015;4(3):1–8.
Rodríguez-Vallejo M, Remón L, Monsoriu JA, Furlan WD. Designing a new test for contrast sensitivity function measurement with iPad. J Optom [Internet]. 2015;8(2):101–8. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2014.06.003
Vingrys AJ, Healey JK, Liew S, Saharinen V, Tran M, Wu W, et al. Validation of a tablet as a tangent perimeter. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2016;5(4).
Kong YXG, He M, Crowston JG, Vingrys AJ. A comparison of perimetric results from a tablet perimeter and humphrey field analyzer in glaucoma patients. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2016;5(6).
Kumar H, Thulasidas M. Comparison of Perimetric Outcomes from Melbourne Rapid Fields Tablet Perimeter Software and Humphrey Field Analyzer in Glaucoma Patients. J Ophthalmol. 2020;2020.
Prea SM, Kong GYX, Guymer RH, Vingrys AJ. Uptake, Persistence, and Performance of Weekly Home Monitoring of Visual Field in a Large Cohort of Patients With Glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol [Internet]. 2021;223:286–95.
Matsuura M, Hirasawa K, Murata H, Asaoka R. The relationship between visual acuity and the reproducibility of visual field measurements in glaucoma patients. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015;56(9):5630–5.
Schulz AM, Graham EC, You YY, Klistorner A, Graham SL. Performance of iPad-based threshold perimetry in glaucoma and controls. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2018;46(4):346–55.
Anderson AJ, Bedggood PA, George Kong YX, Martin KR, Vingrys AJ. Can Home Monitoring Allow Earlier Detection of Rapid Visual Field Progression in Glaucoma? Ophthalmology [Internet]. 2017;124(12):1735–42.
Prea SM, Kong YXG, Mehta A, He M, Crowston JG, Gupta V, et al. Six-month Longitudinal Comparison of a Portable Tablet Perimeter With the Humphrey Field Analyzer. Am J Ophthalmol [Internet]. 2018;190:916.
Sekhar GC, Naduvilath TJ, Lakkai M, Jayakumar AJ, Pandi GT, Mandal AK, et al. Sensitivity of Swedish interactive threshold algorithm compared with standard full threshold algorithm in Humphrey visual field testing. Ophthalmology. 2000;107(7):1303–8.
Heijl A, Vincent MP, Bengtsson B. Effective Perimetry. Fourth Ed. 2012;(Dublin, CA?: Carl Zeiss Meditec):45–72.
J P. Glaucoma Screening Using an iPad-based Visual Field Test: A Feasibility Study. 2018.
Ezinne NE, Ojukwu CS, Ekemiri KK, Akano OF, Ekure E, Osuagwu UL. Prevalence and clinical profile of glaucoma patients in rural Nigeria—A hospital based study. PLoS One [Internet]. 2021;16(12 December):1–15.
Shrestha, Nirsara; Shrestha, Sangeeta; Khadka, Deepak; Shrestha, Arjun; Suwal, Barsha; Sharma, Samata; Shrestha R. Clinical and epidemiological study in patients with glaucoma in tertiary eye center , Bhaktapur. 2020;1–11.
Chan EWE, Li X, Tham YC, Liao J, Wong TY, Aung T, et al. Glaucoma in Asia: Regional prevalence variations and future projections. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016;100(1):78–85.
Gillespie BW, Musch DC, Guire KE, Mills RP, Lichter PR, Janz NK, et al. The collaborative initial glaucoma treatment study: Baseline visual field and test-retest variability. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44(6):2613–20.
Bjerre A, Grigg JR, Parry NRA, Henson DB. Test-retest variability of multifocal visual evoked potential and SITA standard perimetry in glaucoma. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45(11):4035–40.
Ozeki N, Yuki K, Shiba D, Tsubota K. Evaluation of functional visual acuity in glaucoma patients. J Glaucoma. 2017;26(3):223–6.
Flaxel CJ, Samples JR, Dustin L. Relationship Between Foveal Threshold and Visual Acuity Using the Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143(5):875–7.
Chiba N, Imasawa M, Goto T, Imai M, Iijima H. Foveal sensitivity and visual acuity in macular thickening disorders. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2012;56(4):375–9.
Authors
Copyright (c) 2023 Yuri Dwi Mayasari, Virna Dwi Oktariana, Dewi Yunia Fitriani
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.