新型头戴式客观自动测距仪（注视分析周长）与汉弗莱视场分析仪的比较。

IF 2.8 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY Ophthalmology. Glaucoma Pub Date : 2024-09-01 DOI:10.1016/j.ogla.2024.05.003

{"title":"新型头戴式客观自动测距仪（注视分析周长）与汉弗莱视场分析仪的比较。","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.ogla.2024.05.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To evaluate the agreement between 24-2 visual field (VF) test results obtained using the gaze analyzing perimeter (GAP; Findex) and the Humphrey field analyzer (HFA; Carl Zeiss Meditec).</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Cross-sectional study.</div></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><div>Patients underwent HFA 24-2 for suspected or confirmed VF loss and were treated at the Kyoto University Hospital between December 2022 and July 2023.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Patients underwent consecutive VF tests on the same eye using HFA and GAP 24-2 tests. Bland–Altman analysis was used to compare GAP and HFA results. Examination points where the sensitivity measured using GAP was ≥ 10 dB higher than that measured using HFA were re-evaluated by referring back to the original gaze data; 2 ophthalmologists assessed whether the gaze moved linearly toward the new test target.</div></div><div><h3>Main Outcome Measures</h3><div>Mean deviation (MD) and elapsed time on an individual basis and sensitivity on an examination point basis.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Forty-seven eyes of 47 patients were analyzed. The correlation coefficient of the MD using HFA and GAP was 0.811 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.683–0.891). Bland–Altman analysis showed good agreement between HFA and GAP tests. The mean difference (95% limits of agreement) in MD between HFA and GAP results was −0.63 dB (−5.81 to 4.54 dB). Although no statistically significant differences were observed in the elapsed time (<em>P</em> = 0.99), measurements completed within 200 seconds were observed only in the GAP group (11 cases, 23.4%), who had significantly better HFA MD value than others (<em>P</em> = 0.001). On an examination point basis for sensitivity, the correlation coefficient between HFA and GAP was 0.691 (95% limits of agreement, 0.670–0.711). Original gaze data assessment revealed that the gaze moved linearly toward the new test target for 70.2% of the examination points with a sensitivity discrepancy.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The results indicate that the GAP provides VF assessment outcomes comparable to those of the HFA. The GAP exhibited advantages in terms of testing time, particularly in patients with minimal VF impairment. Furthermore, the GAP records all eye movements, enabling the objective determination of VF abnormalities based on gaze patterns and facilitating easy posthoc verification.</div></div><div><h3>Financial Disclosure(s)</h3><div>Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":19519,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmology. Glaucoma","volume":"7 5","pages":"Pages 445-453"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S258941962400084X/pdfft?md5=995ada057c89360ca541325143132a44&pid=1-s2.0-S258941962400084X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of a Novel Head-Mounted Objective Auto-perimetry (Gaze Analyzing Perimeter) and Humphrey Field Analyzer\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ogla.2024.05.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To evaluate the agreement between 24-2 visual field (VF) test results obtained using the gaze analyzing perimeter (GAP; Findex) and the Humphrey field analyzer (HFA; Carl Zeiss Meditec).</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Cross-sectional study.</div></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><div>Patients underwent HFA 24-2 for suspected or confirmed VF loss and were treated at the Kyoto University Hospital between December 2022 and July 2023.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Patients underwent consecutive VF tests on the same eye using HFA and GAP 24-2 tests. Bland–Altman analysis was used to compare GAP and HFA results. Examination points where the sensitivity measured using GAP was ≥ 10 dB higher than that measured using HFA were re-evaluated by referring back to the original gaze data; 2 ophthalmologists assessed whether the gaze moved linearly toward the new test target.</div></div><div><h3>Main Outcome Measures</h3><div>Mean deviation (MD) and elapsed time on an individual basis and sensitivity on an examination point basis.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Forty-seven eyes of 47 patients were analyzed. The correlation coefficient of the MD using HFA and GAP was 0.811 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.683–0.891). Bland–Altman analysis showed good agreement between HFA and GAP tests. The mean difference (95% limits of agreement) in MD between HFA and GAP results was −0.63 dB (−5.81 to 4.54 dB). Although no statistically significant differences were observed in the elapsed time (<em>P</em> = 0.99), measurements completed within 200 seconds were observed only in the GAP group (11 cases, 23.4%), who had significantly better HFA MD value than others (<em>P</em> = 0.001). On an examination point basis for sensitivity, the correlation coefficient between HFA and GAP was 0.691 (95% limits of agreement, 0.670–0.711). Original gaze data assessment revealed that the gaze moved linearly toward the new test target for 70.2% of the examination points with a sensitivity discrepancy.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The results indicate that the GAP provides VF assessment outcomes comparable to those of the HFA. The GAP exhibited advantages in terms of testing time, particularly in patients with minimal VF impairment. Furthermore, the GAP records all eye movements, enabling the objective determination of VF abnormalities based on gaze patterns and facilitating easy posthoc verification.</div></div><div><h3>Financial Disclosure(s)</h3><div>Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19519,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ophthalmology. Glaucoma\",\"volume\":\"7 5\",\"pages\":\"Pages 445-453\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S258941962400084X/pdfft?md5=995ada057c89360ca541325143132a44&pid=1-s2.0-S258941962400084X-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ophthalmology. Glaucoma\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S258941962400084X\",\"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/S258941962400084X","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: 0

摘要

目的：评估使用凝视分析仪（GAP；FINDEX，日本东京）和汉弗莱视野分析仪（HFA；卡尔蔡司医疗技术公司，美国加利福尼亚州都柏林）获得的 24-2 视野（VF）测试结果之间的一致性：设计：横断面研究参与者：2022 年 12 月至 2023 年 7 月期间在京都大学医院接受治疗的疑似或确诊 VF 缺失的 HFA 24-2 患者：患者使用 HFA 和 GAP 24-2 测试对同一只眼睛进行连续 VF 测试。使用 Bland-Altman 分析比较 GAP 和 HFA 的结果。对使用 GAP 测得的灵敏度比使用 HFA 测得的灵敏度高≥10 dB 的检查点，通过回溯原始注视数据进行重新评估；由两名眼科医生评估注视是否向新的测试目标线性移动：主要结果测量指标：以个体为单位的平均偏差（MD）和耗时，以及以检查点为单位的灵敏度：对 47 名患者的 47 只眼睛进行了分析。使用 HFA 和 GAP 的 MD 相关系数为 0.811（95% 置信区间 [CI]：0.683-0.891）。Bland-Altman分析表明，HFA和GAP测试之间具有良好的一致性。HFA 和 GAP 结果的 MD 平均差异（95% 置信区间 [LOA]）为 -0.63 dB（-5.81 至 4.54 dB）。虽然在所用时间上没有观察到明显的统计学差异（P = 0.99），但只有 GAP 组（11 例，23.4%）的测量在 200 秒内完成，他们的 HFA MD 值明显优于其他组（P=0.001）。根据检查点的敏感性，HFA 和 GAP 之间的相关系数为 0.691（95% LOA，0.670-0.711）。原始凝视数据评估显示，70.2%的检查点的凝视呈线性向新的测试目标移动，存在灵敏度差异：结果表明，GAP 可提供与 HFA 相当的 VF 评估结果。GAP 在测试时间方面表现出优势，尤其是对视力损害极小的患者。此外，GAP 还能记录所有眼球运动，从而能根据注视模式客观判断 VF 异常，便于事后验证。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

Comparison of a Novel Head-Mounted Objective Auto-perimetry (Gaze Analyzing Perimeter) and Humphrey Field Analyzer

Purpose

To evaluate the agreement between 24-2 visual field (VF) test results obtained using the gaze analyzing perimeter (GAP; Findex) and the Humphrey field analyzer (HFA; Carl Zeiss Meditec).

Design

Cross-sectional study.

Participants

Patients underwent HFA 24-2 for suspected or confirmed VF loss and were treated at the Kyoto University Hospital between December 2022 and July 2023.

Methods

Patients underwent consecutive VF tests on the same eye using HFA and GAP 24-2 tests. Bland–Altman analysis was used to compare GAP and HFA results. Examination points where the sensitivity measured using GAP was ≥ 10 dB higher than that measured using HFA were re-evaluated by referring back to the original gaze data; 2 ophthalmologists assessed whether the gaze moved linearly toward the new test target.

Main Outcome Measures

Mean deviation (MD) and elapsed time on an individual basis and sensitivity on an examination point basis.

Results

Forty-seven eyes of 47 patients were analyzed. The correlation coefficient of the MD using HFA and GAP was 0.811 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.683–0.891). Bland–Altman analysis showed good agreement between HFA and GAP tests. The mean difference (95% limits of agreement) in MD between HFA and GAP results was −0.63 dB (−5.81 to 4.54 dB). Although no statistically significant differences were observed in the elapsed time (P = 0.99), measurements completed within 200 seconds were observed only in the GAP group (11 cases, 23.4%), who had significantly better HFA MD value than others (P = 0.001). On an examination point basis for sensitivity, the correlation coefficient between HFA and GAP was 0.691 (95% limits of agreement, 0.670–0.711). Original gaze data assessment revealed that the gaze moved linearly toward the new test target for 70.2% of the examination points with a sensitivity discrepancy.

Conclusions

The results indicate that the GAP provides VF assessment outcomes comparable to those of the HFA. The GAP exhibited advantages in terms of testing time, particularly in patients with minimal VF impairment. Furthermore, the GAP records all eye movements, enabling the objective determination of VF abnormalities based on gaze patterns and facilitating easy posthoc verification.