Joyce Kang BA , Sofia De Arrigunaga MD, MPH , Sandra E. Freeman BA , Yan Zhao MS , Michael Lin MD , Daniel L. Liebman MD , Ana M. Roldan MD , Julia A. Kim BS , Dolly S. Chang MD, PhD , David S. Friedman MD, PhD , Tobias Elze PhD
{"title":"平板电脑周长计、智能视觉功能分析仪和Humphrey视野分析仪的周长结果比较。","authors":"Joyce Kang BA , Sofia De Arrigunaga MD, MPH , Sandra E. Freeman BA , Yan Zhao MS , Michael Lin MD , Daniel L. Liebman MD , Ana M. Roldan MD , Julia A. Kim BS , Dolly S. Chang MD, PhD , David S. Friedman MD, PhD , Tobias Elze PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.ogla.2023.03.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>The tablet-based Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) visual field (VF) test and the IMOvifa Smart Visual Function Analyzer (SVFA) are portable perimeters that may allow for at-home monitoring and more frequent testing. We compared tablet and SVFA results with outputs from the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 24-2 Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm Standard program.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>Observational cross-sectional study.</p></div><div><h3>Subjects</h3><p>Adult participants with a diagnosis of glaucoma, suspected glaucoma, or ocular hypertension seen in the Massachusetts Eye and Ear glaucoma clinic were enrolled. All participants were reliable and experienced HFA testers.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Participants were tested with the SVFA and HFA. The study staff also trained participants on the MRF tablet with instructions to take weekly tests at home for 3 months. Visual field results from the 3 devices were compared.</p></div><div><h3>Main Outcome Measures</h3><p>Mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), reliability parameters, and point sensitivity.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Overall, 79 participants (133 eyes) with a mean age of 61 ± 13 years (range, 26–79 years) were included; 59% of the participants were female, and the mean HFA MD was −2.7 ± 3.9 dB. The global indices of MD and PSD did not significantly vary between HFA and the 2 novel devices, except that the tablet VF reported a 0.6 dB higher PSD compared with HFA. However, tablet and SVFA sensitivities significantly differed from those of the HFA at 36 and 39 locations, respectively, out of 52 locations. Relative to HFA, the tablet overestimated light sensitivity in the nasal field while underestimating the temporal field. The SVFA generally underestimated light sensitivity, but its results were more similar to HFA results compared with the tablet.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Although average MD values from the 2 novel devices suggest that they provide similar results to the HFA, point-by-point comparisons highlight notable deviations. Differences in specific point sensitivity values were significant, especially between the tablet and the other 2 devices. These differences may in part be explained by differences in the devices' normative databases as well as how MD is calculated. However, the tablet had substantial differences based on location, indicating that the tablet design itself may be responsible for differences in local sensitivities.</p></div><div><h3>Financial Disclosure(s)</h3><p>Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":19519,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmology. Glaucoma","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10495534/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Perimetric Outcomes from a Tablet Perimeter, Smart Visual Function Analyzer, and Humphrey Field Analyzer\",\"authors\":\"Joyce Kang BA , Sofia De Arrigunaga MD, MPH , Sandra E. Freeman BA , Yan Zhao MS , Michael Lin MD , Daniel L. Liebman MD , Ana M. Roldan MD , Julia A. Kim BS , Dolly S. Chang MD, PhD , David S. Friedman MD, PhD , Tobias Elze PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ogla.2023.03.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>The tablet-based Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) visual field (VF) test and the IMOvifa Smart Visual Function Analyzer (SVFA) are portable perimeters that may allow for at-home monitoring and more frequent testing. We compared tablet and SVFA results with outputs from the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 24-2 Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm Standard program.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>Observational cross-sectional study.</p></div><div><h3>Subjects</h3><p>Adult participants with a diagnosis of glaucoma, suspected glaucoma, or ocular hypertension seen in the Massachusetts Eye and Ear glaucoma clinic were enrolled. All participants were reliable and experienced HFA testers.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Participants were tested with the SVFA and HFA. The study staff also trained participants on the MRF tablet with instructions to take weekly tests at home for 3 months. Visual field results from the 3 devices were compared.</p></div><div><h3>Main Outcome Measures</h3><p>Mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), reliability parameters, and point sensitivity.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Overall, 79 participants (133 eyes) with a mean age of 61 ± 13 years (range, 26–79 years) were included; 59% of the participants were female, and the mean HFA MD was −2.7 ± 3.9 dB. The global indices of MD and PSD did not significantly vary between HFA and the 2 novel devices, except that the tablet VF reported a 0.6 dB higher PSD compared with HFA. However, tablet and SVFA sensitivities significantly differed from those of the HFA at 36 and 39 locations, respectively, out of 52 locations. Relative to HFA, the tablet overestimated light sensitivity in the nasal field while underestimating the temporal field. The SVFA generally underestimated light sensitivity, but its results were more similar to HFA results compared with the tablet.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Although average MD values from the 2 novel devices suggest that they provide similar results to the HFA, point-by-point comparisons highlight notable deviations. Differences in specific point sensitivity values were significant, especially between the tablet and the other 2 devices. These differences may in part be explained by differences in the devices' normative databases as well as how MD is calculated. However, the tablet had substantial differences based on location, indicating that the tablet design itself may be responsible for differences in local sensitivities.</p></div><div><h3>Financial Disclosure(s)</h3><p>Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19519,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ophthalmology. Glaucoma\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10495534/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ophthalmology. Glaucoma\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589419623000595\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmology. Glaucoma","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589419623000595","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
摘要
目的:基于平板电脑的Melbourne Rapid Fields(MRF)视野(VF)测试和IMOvifa智能视觉功能分析仪(SVFA)是便携式周界,可以在家进行监测和更频繁的测试。我们将平板电脑和SVFA结果与Humphrey Field Analyzer(HFA)24-2瑞典交互式阈值算法标准程序的输出进行了比较。设计:观察性横断面研究。受试者:在马萨诸塞州眼耳青光眼诊所就诊的诊断为青光眼、疑似青光眼或高眼压的成年参与者被纳入研究。所有参与者都是可靠且经验丰富的HFA测试人员。方法:采用SVFA和HFA对受试者进行测试。研究人员还对参与者进行了MRF平板电脑培训,并指示他们在家进行为期3个月的每周测试。比较了三种装置的视野结果。主要结果指标:平均偏差(MD)、模式标准偏差(PSD)、可靠性参数和点敏感性。结果:共有79名参与者(133眼),平均年龄61±13岁(26-79岁);59%的参与者是女性,平均HFA-MD为-2.7±3.9 dB。MD和PSD的总体指数在HFA和2种新型设备之间没有显著变化,只是片剂VF报告的PSD比HFA高0.6dB。然而,在52个位置中,片剂和SVFA的敏感性分别在36个和39个位置与HFA显著不同。相对于HFA,该片剂高估了鼻野的感光度,而低估了时域。SVFA通常低估了感光度,但与片剂相比,其结果与HFA结果更相似。结论:尽管两种新型装置的平均MD值表明它们提供了与HFA相似的结果,但逐点比较突出了显著的偏差。特定点灵敏度值的差异非常显著,尤其是在片剂和其他2种设备之间。这些差异可以部分解释为设备标准数据库的差异以及MD的计算方式。然而,该片剂在位置上存在显著差异,这表明片剂设计本身可能是局部敏感性差异的原因。财务披露:专有或商业披露可在本文末尾的脚注和披露中找到。
Comparison of Perimetric Outcomes from a Tablet Perimeter, Smart Visual Function Analyzer, and Humphrey Field Analyzer
Purpose
The tablet-based Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) visual field (VF) test and the IMOvifa Smart Visual Function Analyzer (SVFA) are portable perimeters that may allow for at-home monitoring and more frequent testing. We compared tablet and SVFA results with outputs from the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 24-2 Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm Standard program.
Design
Observational cross-sectional study.
Subjects
Adult participants with a diagnosis of glaucoma, suspected glaucoma, or ocular hypertension seen in the Massachusetts Eye and Ear glaucoma clinic were enrolled. All participants were reliable and experienced HFA testers.
Methods
Participants were tested with the SVFA and HFA. The study staff also trained participants on the MRF tablet with instructions to take weekly tests at home for 3 months. Visual field results from the 3 devices were compared.
Main Outcome Measures
Mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), reliability parameters, and point sensitivity.
Results
Overall, 79 participants (133 eyes) with a mean age of 61 ± 13 years (range, 26–79 years) were included; 59% of the participants were female, and the mean HFA MD was −2.7 ± 3.9 dB. The global indices of MD and PSD did not significantly vary between HFA and the 2 novel devices, except that the tablet VF reported a 0.6 dB higher PSD compared with HFA. However, tablet and SVFA sensitivities significantly differed from those of the HFA at 36 and 39 locations, respectively, out of 52 locations. Relative to HFA, the tablet overestimated light sensitivity in the nasal field while underestimating the temporal field. The SVFA generally underestimated light sensitivity, but its results were more similar to HFA results compared with the tablet.
Conclusions
Although average MD values from the 2 novel devices suggest that they provide similar results to the HFA, point-by-point comparisons highlight notable deviations. Differences in specific point sensitivity values were significant, especially between the tablet and the other 2 devices. These differences may in part be explained by differences in the devices' normative databases as well as how MD is calculated. However, the tablet had substantial differences based on location, indicating that the tablet design itself may be responsible for differences in local sensitivities.
Financial Disclosure(s)
Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.